User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2011/April

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Looks like a decent bit of work you have done for April 1. Perhaps Pigeon photographer should be worked on earlier for next year. ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer would make a great April 1 TFA, but time is short. Maybe next year, as you say. As regards reverting the move, best to ask one of the admins; I'm just a drone. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

April 1st and well done you and your colleagues once again. please pass on my thanks to them. Now if we could get our Mistley mate involved!!! (what a rumpus that would cause)Edmund Patrick – confer 05:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I hope you don't mind my posting here but this is the closest thing to an article content contributors' noticeboard I am aware of on Wikipedia and wanted an outside opinion of whether I'm off base. The issue is currently at ANI. For my willingness to fix the article up and not allow banners on it I'm being accused of ownership issues. I added nearly 20 sources to the article but the current banner and article (protected by an admin) includes request for additional references and suggests it needs to be wikified first. Am I out-to-lunch on this one or is this preposterous? Thank you for your observations.

• Diff from just before my first edit to my last edit.
• Before my edits
• latest
• Talk:Mary_G._Enig
• Article history

Lambanog (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixing that article up is like "fixing up" the article about Gillian McKeith- it suggests that you're into promoting woo. Go fix some other article- it's not worth digging a hole for yourself on this one. Ning-ning (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It reads somewhat like a defence of her. I suggest you track down some direct personal criticisms from other people in her field, or journalists, and add those to the article. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that you and Ronz were perhaps a little fortunate that Orangemike decided to protect the article rather than block both of you. Ronz and Yobol did make some good points, even though like you I'm most definitely not a fan of those disfiguring banner tags. Ning-ning and PoD are also correct, in that the article overall has a rather promotional and uncritical feel that needs to be addressed, which is what I'd say is its biggest problem. If that was sorted everything else would come out in the wash IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 13:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ning-ning—woo? Maybe but she's 2 for 3 so far against the establishment (trans fats, low-fat diet, saturated fats) in the marathon game and going for the shutout. Looking at the way things are going in research land she might get it and end up looking like Cassandra. She's not mainstream but from what I've seen of the evidence, her objections are grounded. She deserved better than the hit job done on her article that I saw when I first came to it. If all editors avoided minority viewpoints it would undermine coverage of intellectual discourse and complete information, but I appreciate the advice.

Parrot of Doom, I was still in the process of collecting sources and I think found 4 that could be called critical of her and they were added to the article but haven't had time to expand them. She was involved in the lawsuit to ban Oreo cookies because of its trans fats and that hasn't been expanded either.

Malleus maybe but I get the feeling Orangemike has expressed a bias on the talk page and his monitoring of it hasn't exactly improved the article. Wouldn't mind sorting out problems but it is hard to improve an article when editing it is prevented. I guess I just don't see Ronz's finer points either. Despite his many "improvements" on olive oil, the banners he retains probably put off serious editors. But admins seem to just dig his kind of editing.

Thanks again all for your comments. Lambanog (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So copy the article into a sandbox in your userspace, and continue working on it there. Nobody will prevent that. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A web search for "Mary Enig quack" may be useful in providing some critical viewpoints for the article. Ning-ning (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I find Mary Enig interesting but I'm not that invested in the subject, so working on it on a subpage is not high on my priority list. I improved the article to a point where I think it is readable and better than when I found it. Now if people are going to come out of the woodwork and improve it further or tear it apart under the noses of the admins protecting it we'll have to see. As for a search using "Mary Enig quack", the rub is that criticism of her should also fit WP:RS criteria. A Tufts review from 2001 apparently criticizes the Weston Price Foundation and would likely meet the RS bar and I'd likely include it if I could find the report. Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch is another that is mentioned as a critic but I'm not sure it's reliable. There's also the question of whether criticism of the WPF or WP can be equated with criticism of Enig. The four I found would be clearer. Anyway I currently cannot edit the article so it's moot for now. Lambanog (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merry christmas bud Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Congratulations on your 100000th edit! You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Buster Seven Talk 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

this we have each written one of the two most viewed TFAs this year. It must be something in the water around here. Parrot of Doom 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Or something missing from the water elsewhere. I'm glad the fairies did so well, it's a nice gentle story from another age. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, 222,200?? But I'll top that once National Academic Library is longer than two sentences and gets promoted to FA, no doubt. Congratulations! Drmies (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you gave me a list of things to work on for him, did we put it on my talk pages? I have misplaced it... He's not "next" as the Equine project's looking at Appaloosa next, but he'll be my next one up. No more carousels, they are as bad as medieval taxes for my blood pressure and sanity, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's here I think. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your earlier edit saying the same thing. (FWIW, I think notes without periods are ugly! and I'm sure you noticed that some of the references have closing periods, but not all of them.) For the purpose of verification, check your email. This whole "explanations" section needs, I think reorganizing one way or another--the attempts at historical explanation are of a different category than Cohen's literary and possibly anthropological argument, but I can't rightly figure out what would be most fruitful. But you can, no doubt--that's why they pay you the big bucks. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I apply the same rule to notes and citations as in the article body, which is that only full sentences end in fullstops. I agree that the Explanations section needs some reorganisation; it was really just a holding bay, waiting for some attention. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. Got the email, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I fought over that same issue with someone in the FL review for Kronos Quartet discography, but I won't rehash that here. Yes, I figured it was a holding pen of sorts. BTW, Cohen's note 18, I wonder if those books mention our children--haven't checked my library yet. Also BTW, I don't think there's an English translation of Chronicon Anglicanum, is there? And tt seems that the bibliography of the article in its current state is pretty exhaustive. I'll keep looking, nonetheless. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Chronicon? I.e. who's the chronicler? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ralph of Coggeshall. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not appear to be, at least according to World Cat. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, get to translating! I gotta go make dinner. Thanks anyway, Drmies (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You kindly contributed to the recent peer review of Thomas Beecham, following which I have nominated the article at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. If you keep on top of the reviewers comments I'm sure you won't have too many problems. Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Left some bibliographic notes at Talk:Green children of Woolpit. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO your reasoning for deleting the link to bullying in IT doesnt stack up. Your comments "incredible" and "irrelevant" are inappropriate. (you can reply here i have this talk page on watch).--Penbat (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being ridiculous, and in fact I have a mind to take your new article to AfD. In any event it's utterly and completely irrelevant to the information technology article, which is in a poor enough state as it is without adding this kind of nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Set of copyvios from trulia.com - possibly spam in intention. I've speedied it and closed the discussion as there's nothing there to discuss now... Peridon (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspected a copyvio, but couldn't immediately confirm it so I started to open an AfD, which I thought I'd deleted after another editor applied a CSD tag. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As always for the copyediting... obviously I got diverted into Appaloosa today, rather than getting to Hygeberht like I'd planned... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I noticed the comma pepper-pot being deployed and while I was sorting that I noticed a few other things that had crept in. Four supports now though, game over? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Five I think... and you know I love commas! I think we're just waiting on Sandy or Andy here... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know how all Americans seem to love commas, but there comes a point when an article has enough of them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes have to transcibe articles from English provincial newspapers of the early twentieth century. The compositors must have been paid by the comma, and then there's the weird habit of starting a sentence with a hyphen. -Must have changed sometime in the '40s. Ning-ning (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're still hangin around this joint? ... haha .. how ya doin Mal? — Ched :  ?  22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They haven't managed to get rid of me yet, but that doesn't stop them trying from time to time though. So far I think I'm winning on points, largely because I'm usually right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, good to still see you're here. There's a few with a touch of clue, but they need you to run around with that sanity stick and beat em once in a while. — Ched :  ?  23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not motorsport history I'm afraid, but a similar Boy's Own topic. If you find a minute, air-tractor sledge could use a copyedit (and will hopefully be vaguely interesting too!) Apterygial ^talk 13:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I really appreciate it. Apterygial ^talk 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you know style and Englishnesses. Can you weigh in at ANI? I couldn't find a guideline in the MoS, but I know I've seen discussion on how (and where, and when) to use English vs. British. (I'm not asking you to jump in the dispute, and if you want to stay away, I'd appreciate your answer nonetheless, here in the privacy of your talk page.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me, but if it's what someone born in England would call themselves then that's English. Hardly anyone living here would call themselves "British": English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, but not British. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering if Wikipedia has guidelines for what to call a person born in a certain part of those islands up there, even regardless of what they would call themselves. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of, but anyone born in England would call themselves English. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• This essay may be of interest. --John (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, every person mentioned in that essay is white (and I include John Brown in that category). Where's the rest of us? Ning-ning (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your major malfunction? Try a little harder to be civil. --rogerd (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep a civil tongue in your head. As far as I'm concerned you have once again proved me right. You administrators are becoming a laughing stock. You were presented with clear evidence that the candidate fundamentally misunderstood one of the basic admin tasks, and was therefore inevitably going to "abuse the tools", yet you chose to ignore that fact. Why? Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that you have asked a question, instead of an insult, I will be happy to address it. I believe in assuming good faith. He may (or may not) have misunderstood the policy a little, but that doesn't mean he would purposefully abuse admin tools. I didn't ignore anything. I personally feel that any user with a few good months of solid contributions and no history of any malfeasance should be trusted to be an admin, if he/she wants to. I see that you have had some issues in your own RFAs, and that may color your judgment some, but I noticed in your second RFA, your third supporter used almost the same language that I used in the RFA in question. I didn't participate in either of your RFAs, but if I had, I probably would have been supportive. I hope this clears things up a little. --rogerd (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question; I'm not interested in what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to look back on that RfA almost three years ago now, and to be reminded of who my enemies are, so thanks for that. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus I couldn't agree more with you!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have any objection to this, I'll add a disclaimer ... I assume you value your role as RFA curmudgeon and enjoy the show, but people can't hear tone online so I'll understand if you want me to not to make jokes.

I always learn something when you copyedit after I do, please keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA curmudgeon eh? I prefer to think that I'm playing some small part in drawing attention to the absurdity of the process. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Some copy editor ... I didn't realize the word meant "ill-tempered", I was going more for "gruff, no-nonsense". As I said ... keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And if you're interested in copyediting, Malleus ;-) Apterygial ^talk 00:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and take a proper look through tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured you'd seen it, but I thought I'd just make sure. Apterygial ^talk 00:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank, increasingly I think that I'm being too hard on a generation let down by their teachers and seduced by predictive texting. My understanding of Cnut's legendary stand against the sea is that it wasn't to prove to his subjects that he could, but to prove to them that he couldn't, and I feel much the same. No doubt one day we'll all be speaking and writing baby-talk. But until then ... Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching a series of lectures by Jennifer Paxton on the Anglo-Saxons so I get what you're saying. Btw, you might enjoy Idiocracy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OOOH! You used Cnut! Yay you! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I know stuff. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

People in Britain know how to cook with them? Must be all the curry.... Lambanog (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Must be missing something; cook with what? Ealdgyth: Cnut is more natural to me because the town of Knutsford is quite close to where I was born and brought up, and local legend claims that it's named after him. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't true. It's vanishingly rare for arbs to be blocked, but that's because it's hard for someone seriously problematic to reach Arbcom (and if they do, they're so high profile that problems are likely to be nipped in the bud quickly and never reach the warn-block-ban stage), rather than because the position grants some kind of immunity. As Bishonen can tell you, if an arb is acting in a way that's seen as problematic they can be blocked just the same as anyone else. – iridescent 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still believe that's it's naive to claim that there's no hierarchy of power, as it's undoubtedly true that I can't block you. Not that I want to of course, or anyone else for that matter. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a hierarchy, but it's more nuanced than an arb/crat/admin/non-admin pyramid. Blocking is only a small part of influence; Sandy or Tony, for instance, undoubtedly have more say in how Wikipedia operates than most of the admins, and even you and Giano have more influence than I think you realise. In the Wikipedia context, "ability to get things done" isn't so much a matter of technical abilities, but of how many people will listen to what you have to say. – iridescent 23:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"... even you and Giano". Now that's damning with faint praise if ever I saw it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt a hierarchy of authority, but I doubt one of power. The philosophical debate of "authority vs. power" is a well-known one, and I'm of the opinion that the concept of administration on a website hardly constitutes "power" in the sense that we harbor a cohesive sequence along the lines of admin→arb→crat. I could block you if I wanted, but someone will surely object and see to it that you be unblocked – leaving me powerless in the situation. Juliancolton (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But I couldn't block you, hence the hierarchy; two levels is enough for a hierarchy. I could paraphrase your argument thus: "I [a doctor] could wound you, but another doctor could cure you, so no harm done", which I don't find very convincing. Malleus Fatuorum 05:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to side with Julian/Irri here, somebody may have the technical ability to block you... but that doesn't mean that they have the power to block you. In fact, I suspect that 95% of people who have tried, have ended up cowering in the corner as the backlash against them was so great that it wasn't even funny. Technical ability <> power.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet they keep trying. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Giano a bum chum I gather?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bum chum? Are you suggesting that we're gay? Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn, this totally ruined my image of you... ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "bum chum" means something else wherever Dr. Blofeld lives. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant you are friendly vagrants, editing from a public library. :) --RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Where I live it means two or more people sticking up for each other and will do so even if it might bring on a backlash (if you;ll pardon the pun). .♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As I may occasionally have mentioned, I was once blocked for suggesting that some unnamed editors were sycophants, doing whatever was required to climb the greasy admin pole. Yet in the topic above this one Gianoand I are accused of being shirt lifters, with not an eyebrow raised. Are such comments directed towards unpopular editors like us taken less seriously just because of who we are? Obviously I don't want Blofeld to get blocked for his indiscretion, but I'm wondering if wikipedia's ludicrously childish civility policy ought not to be updated to reflect this apparent imbalance. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There are 852 admins, all with the ability to unilaterally block someone without checking with anyone else first; expecting consistency from this anarchy is going to lead to disappointment. The answers to this possibly rhetorical question are (a) the block for saying "sycophants" was wrong, and (too lazy to check, so crossing my fingers I'm remembering right) was overturned at AN or ANI or someplace (if it wasn't, it should have been); (b) I'm very puzzled by this comment of Dr. Blofeld's, and would first wait to see if there is some other explanation; I find it hard to believe he meant it the way it sounds, but maybe I'm assuming too much good faith; (c) in general, the type of admin who would immediately block for this is probably the type of admin who doesn't like you, and much like the real world, it's fairly common for humans (and other hominids, like bonobos and admins), to have this kind of a double standard; and (d) the idea that you are an "unpopular editor" is so 2010 - I realize this may rankle, so if you'd like to be more unpopular, I suggest you tell me to fuck off; I am universally loved, and this would return you to the ranks of the outcast very quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What's a willy? Thanks; where would my vocabulary be without this talk page (back in 2010, with the idea that Malleus is unpopular). Yes, Malleus, if you had said that, you'd be blocked already and I'd be attending your block party instead of All Of The Other Fun IRL Stuff I'm Doing. I'm wondering how this is going to work out for Blofeld ... doesn't look good ... but not wondering enough to go check his talk page when I'm busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not blocked, but Risker's left him a warning - guess we'll see how he responds to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well he should be blocked. Quite why someone is allowed to say things like this and remain on the project is alarming. For the record, I am male and heterosexual; Malleus (I have never asked her about sexuality, but I think is male) and as far as I am aware we have never had intimate relations of any kind - I think one of us would remember. Many of my friends here and in RL are homosexual, meterosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and quite a few who just can't be bothered at all. But whatever they are, it is not for the likes of Blofeld to make disgusting insinuation of their preferred methods of making love. People rant incesantly on about incivility here, yet most of them can't recognise incivility even when it stares them in the face - or worse in some other part of their anatomy. If that is the only way Blofeld can make a point, then we don't need him here and I am wondering where the civility police have all gone running. They truly are a hypocritical waste of space. Giacomo Returned 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment YEP! .. The Blofeld comment was TOTALLY out of line. I'm not gonna get into the WP:CIV issues, but personally, I'd see that as a downright personal attack. Lucky to get away with just a warning, although I'm sure someone would start a "punitive" issue if he were blocked at this point. — Ched :  ?  07:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't expect him to get blocked - just demonstrating how the "civility police" see only what they want to see. I suppose in the great scheme of things - saying because an editor doe not like info-boxes, it means he likes to take it up the arse is a perfectly rreasonable assumption in the view of the self-appointed civility police. I must remember that when next trying to make a point. Giacomo Returned 07:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha LOL, exactly Giacomo. Oh come on don't be dopey people. Ched don't be so melodramatic, you;'d be shocked if I really wanted to be unpleasant, trust me. Malleus I'm glad you know me well enough by now to take such comments with a pinch of salt and to not even be remotely phased by them. The reason why the "civility police" didn't turn up is because they know me by now that it won't make a blind bit of difference and makes situations worse than they need to me. My comment, a question of why two editors felt they had to turn up on the talk page of Giacomo to make me look clueless and no idea about wikipedia. Where I come from "bum chum" refers to people who stick together even if it may face adversity. literally "bending over backwards to support one another" if you'll pardon the pun. I was just puzzled and a little surprised why two editors turned up to support Giacomo, it seemd as if they were ganging up on the Bald guy. I thought initially I was being stalked but then I thought, mm Giacomo is obviously a friend of you and then I saw his name discussed on here so I made a light hearted query. Well from my point of view I thought I was doing a good thing by creating Template:Location map Russia Saint Petersburg central. I was, maybe wrongly?? under the impression that the majority were in favour of infoboxes on wikipedia, otherwise they wouldn't be in practically every article except artist articles. I'll agree with you I would rather biographies didn't have an infobox, but I thought adding infoboxes to building articles wouldn't create any opposition, so a little surprised more than anything.. Forgive my ignorance but I had no idea who Giacomo was or his connections on here. I wonder why I have never come across him before. I see he is an excellent editor seeing the articles he's edited in the past which is why he has so much support amongst good editors here. But surely the fact that the majority of articles contain infoboxes that there is some consensus they are desired on here, otherwise the people who detest them would win out and remove them all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was 8 editors who turned up, in a short space of time. The only odd thing is that you appear never previously to have encountered the widepread and often violent dislike of infoboxes in humanities and especially visual articles. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus you have an email. Watch out for the hidden piranha tank trapdoor... Oh am I to be blocked for making such threats?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FFS, can everyone go forth and multiply some mainpage content already?! ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of versions here guys and girls. My favourite is the choice dustbin. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm here speaking for every gay person on the planet, because they all voted for me. Malleus, Giano: we don't want you. Go stand over there with Tom Cruise.

As for the use of "bum chum"...wtf? Blofield, I call in question your sexuality and masculinity. "Blofield" is clearly a name used by a secret organization run by an 8-year-old skip-roping girl named "Sally Sue" who enjoys "My Little Pony", Bratz dolls, fingernail polish that rubs off after 3 hours, and painting her room with unicorns. What do you have to say for yourself, Sally Sue, now that your ruse has been detected? Yes, cry. Buckets of tears. There, there. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, my cover is blown, I never though anybody would ever discover my love of my Little Pony or ass banditry. Hehe, the wonders of internet perception. LOL if you picked up any feminine or gay vibes from the Bald One, you must have Elton John mooning you on the screen in front of you obscuring the raw testosterone filled Blofeld, it aint too hard to see LOL. Hahaha now that's definitely a first being compared to a fag or 8 year old girl. Chuckle, yep that's why I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, typical gay icon. LOL. Actually I look a lot like his son Kyle and am around the same sort of height actually.. But if you think I'm an 8 year old girl or nancy on the Internet then that's awesome mate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Melodramatic? ... Naaa, just saying it was a poor choice of words. Hard to fathom that someone so prolific here isn't familiar with Giano though. — Ched :  ?  13:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, not sure I missed that one... Crikey, 8 turned out, that's beyond bumchummery, that's um.... gang banditry with balaclavas? LOL I am kidding, but the next time a James Blunt fan turns up on my talk page he will be swiftly fed to the piranha. Seriously though, yeah Johnbod is right, I had no idea that so many are against infoboxes.. I really don't mind, maps are my thing really as I like to have a quick reference to where something is in a city or country without having to go looking on google. ii'll admit OSM is not the best, which is why I proposed our own mapping project a while back, a proper quality Atlas in which we can freely crop out maps from which are way better in quality. I still think we could use such a project but the foundation said they were happy just to be affiliated with OSM rather than a WikiAtlas or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have added at the time that Malleus, you just need to set your signature to "Malleus Fatuorum; I was blocked for calling an admin a sycophant once". You'll never have to remind anyone again.

And I think all infoboxes should be set on fire, fueled by my own hatred of them. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Excess nav templates are worse I think, some sports articles have even over 10 on top of each other, hideous. Oh I was considering putting Template:Infobox Star Trek character up for deletion.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear explanation of exactly what is a "bum chum" - next time I see GWH and Sandstein backslapping each other on the block of some hapless editor who forgot to grovel to an admin, I shall just politely say to Sandstein that he is only agreeing with GWH and vice versa because they are bum chums - I am sure that only those with the most base and lowly minds will think I am suggesting anything other than they are just two friends "bending over backwards" <shudder> for each other. Could Risker just confirm this for me, preferably before I tiptoe over to ANI to see what is going on. Giacomo Returned 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome Giano, you better tell em to stop it with the chumming. I'm liking your sense of humour already. Between you and me though (beware of User:Risker, he's a James Blunt fan). Never trust a James Blunt fan! I am joking Risker, I'm sure you are a cool guy really. Blunt's debut song You're Beautiful" was tolerable for a few weeks and then it got massively overplayed everywhere and then got very irritating. His subsequent hits were really really bad especially 1973 or whatever its called. That voice really grates with me... Now if anybody sounds like he's got something shoved up his crevice its Blunty.. Way too nasal... If you want a quality male singer try Kealiʻi Reichel or somebody.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not. A cool guy, that is. What with not being a guy and all. And your behaviour does not seem to have improved since last we spoke: pretending that "bum chum" does not normally mean "homosexual lover" (as it does pretty well universally in all English-speaking countries); nominating an article primarily written by another person who disagreed with you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Kent for deletion instead of asking for a reference; and making fun of a living person as an attempt to needle someone else who disagreed with you. These are not behaviours that reflect someone having come to realise that they made an error in judgment.

Side note to Giano and Malleus: no, I would not recommend that you refer to anyone as someone's bum chum, unless they have already revealed their relationship onwiki. Risker (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The question was Giano's, not mine. I have expressed no intention or desire to call anyone a bum chum, either here on wikipedia or in real life. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Risker (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Never have I heard of bumchum being used in anything but a negative context, and I consider myself to be a connoisseur of bad language. Parrot of Doom 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh... I think Giano was almost certainly joking, if is a language barrier then I hardly think he would be likely to use it anyway. "Bumchum" or "whapping" somebody are terms regularly used from my school days and was never meant in anything but good jest and to be said to those who seem close friends. Where I come from its hardly a taboo expression or even intended to offend gays. "Giano a bum chum I gather?" is a lightly miffed Blofeld term for "How come you both turned out at his talk page against me, stalking or is he simply a good friend? Oh deary me Risker, you really take yourself too seriously. Get over it. Seriously who has ever been offended by it? You? Just the sort who would be offended by Ricky Gervais. I should have known that no fan of James Blunt would ever be cool. As for Mary Kent I happened to be browsing and cam across an unreferenced stub which I tried to find sources for and found virtually nothing solid on the web or google books. I have since tried to scrape some sources together and just assume that due to the period virtually noithing is available. I also nominated another article shortly afterwards, completely unrelated.

Oh and what about the fact I've bent over backwards to make image agreements on flickr to get us images of settlements in Nunavut, Yukon and NWT. As a Canadian are you offended by that too? Or are you going to start assuming good faith here and stop seeing the worst in everybody. Nothing is ever as bad as it seems and the sooner people like you stop blowing everything out of proportionand expecting editors to be saints and just get on with writing an encyclopedia the better it will be. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you've said some different things in your private correspondence to me, I will just let this hang there as is. Apologies to Malleus for having allowed this to continue here. Risker (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Risker.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For fans and non-fans of James Blunt alike, I recommend this two minute clip (if you don't know it already) - Wikipedia can be damaging to one's senses of humor and perspective, and any therapy is welcome I reckon... Geometry guy 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an even better one by this Australian guy, I'lll try to dig it up... :-D Risker (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me thinking that Blofeld's somewhat rambling, banal and "oh so innocent, me" commentary is really not helping in writing an encyclopedia as he urges everyone to do just above? Meaningless generalisations (pointless bollocks is a better description) like "I should have known that no fan of James Blunt would ever be cool.." simply makes him look, well, a little silly at best. Still, not my talk page I guess. Pedro :  Chat  19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, a little late Pedro now with the anti-Blofeld comments... I guess being Spanish you don't understand basic English perhaps and had to use google translate just to work out what had been said. Que?

I've written Felipe González González today, y usted?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Troll. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Aw Mr. Fawlty, "I know nothing"... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Blofeld. When I typed "troll", clearly I meant "ignorant racist WP:DICK". Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well. Now this is less boring. --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I found it very dull myself. Blofeld trying to provoke is generally a bit of a *yawn* moment. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's definitely enough, yawn yawn. Incidentally the whole family my cousin married into is Hispanic and I am learning to speak Spanish fluently. Certainly Spain or Spaniards along with Italian culture are amongst the peoples and culture I'm fonest of and most passionate about, believe it or not, the name Pedro I apologise evokes a certain image not unlike Manuel, which I'm sure you are nothing like whatsoever so forgive me. I love a great deal about Spanish culture, particular flamenco, Paco de Lucia, the greatest guitarist on the planet is my guitar hero. I'd be better off practising my rasqueado and my Bulerias with an A flat 9 and B flat 7 and the 12 beats than engaging in such childish banter. Oh how the Internet sucks in not being able to get a true perception of one another. One thing leads to another and before you know it.... Much like the wars of this world I guess... Nothing but silliness, May peace be with you all and I thankyou once again for your support and love. Take care♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to express that I am no longer interested in this discussion with an extraordinary amount of unsolicited detail, then bid you all adieu enigmatically, which is such a fascinating dichotomy that it's pretty much the most interesting part of this discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer Malleus' original question here - Had I been online / paying any attention to the incident as it developed I would have asked Blofeld to lay off and stop making uncivil comments after the section that preceded this one. I agree with Malleus that it warranted a warning and request to stop, but not a block. I have the page watchlisted but failed to observe it, and my lack of action earlier was not a dual standard, it was lack of having seen that it was going on. You (and Giano) deserve the same protection from others being abusive as anyone else does. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how you people are always off line at the same time, then the slightest hint of perceived incivility from Malleus or me and you all show up like a Number 9 bus. The only reason you are all forced to comment now is because Blofeld took it to ANI and you could not pretend to ignore. You are now stretching credibility and our good faith a little too far. Giacomo Returned 22:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I could have just ignored the whole thread entirely and passed on it, both here and ANI. I've been attempting to get my current consulting client assignment wrapped up and done and move on to a new one, and have barely been on WP for a couple of weeks, as my contributions show. I understand you all are grumpy about the incident. You both have reason to be. You have my sympathy and support on that point, whether you believe it or not. Doesn't change my opinion on your opinions on civility, but neither of you deserved the incident, and Malleus was right that admins should have intervened earlier with the behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI? Oh dear God! Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been overly active in the thread. But you can't trust a 'spic so ...... Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GWH, as one of "you people", even I find that a weak excuse :S --Errant ^(chat!) 22:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mall, see what you miss when you go off working on something else .... pfftt ... actually working on articles at WP ... what a silly thing to do. :) — Ched :  ?  22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a little thing, but I'd really like to get that finished. Writing is hard work though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should format the references section in line with WP:APPENDIX. And there clearly aren't enough sections. I know someone who can help with that. Parrot of Doom 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What a tease you are. The article's a way from being the finished article yet, but it's getting there, slowly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, it has not escaped my attention that some of the most prolific and quality editors that are so often called out for their bluntness, are also the first to wave a hand and say no big deal when they have the most justification for complaints about various comments leveled at themselves. Kudos for the adults that don't go running to mommy every time a little rudeness gets thrown their way. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase something Steve Redgrave said after his last Olympic appearance, if you ever see me starting complaints about incivility at WQA or any of the other playgrounds then you have my permissions to shoot me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a very long time for the penny to drop and I don't doubt that some are still waiting and for some it never will.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Malleus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Still needs work, but I think it's starting to shape up. We need to cover the Banjos hoax and the Babes in the Wood stuff, and think about how best to break up the Explanations section (it's a bit of a wall of text right now), but we're getting there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I was going to look around for some material, of course, but your talk page makes for such fascinating reading that I lost all track of time. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That Banjos thing, that is problematic. Google News offers nothing, and Google Books only has the usual self-published, or otherwise unreliable stuff. I mean, the hits prove that there are hits, but nothing I would want to include. I'll have a quick stroll through the databases. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We can cover the Banjos thing pretty easily I think, as it's a clear spoof, but if we don't cover it we'll forever have editors trying to add it; I'll take care of that. Perhaps you could look at this, which I don't quite understand and needs to be rewritten not least because of the "which ... which": "They appear against the author's desire in William of Newburgh's account of a largely unified England, which Cohen juxtaposes with Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain, which according to William is full of 'gushing and untrammeled lying' and offers accounts of previous kings and kingdoms of different racial identities." Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The databases seem to bear out that John Clark's "Small, Vulnerable ETs" is the only reliable source that says anything about Banjos. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And my apologies for various sentences. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm still struggling with this though: "The children appear against William of Newburgh's desire[13] in his account of a largely unified England". Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

<--He doesn't want to tell the story but is "forced" to do so, on compulsion, because he can't resist: "I myself had protracted doubts over this...I was compelled to believe and marvel at what I cannot grasp or investigate by any powers of the mind." It's an odd thing, but works very well for Cohen's argument (obviously): "the Green Children undermine William's usually confident narration of English perdurability and ascendancy." Rephrase it any way you like. Did I send you the article? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I just read your (and others') comments on infoboxes (re:Winter Palace). Interesting. I hadn't thought about them as not being a given, in part I think it's because I haven't ventured much into GA and FA territory. Something to keep in mind. While I personally like them, if you make the next move on The Man in the Moone you certainly don't have to retain it for my sake. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty neutral on infoboxes in general; if one's present I'll leave it, but I'd never add one. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Malleus, will you please look over my mentee's article (what is completed of it) and provide some feedback on the talk page? The article is Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a topic that grabs me I'm afraid. What about asking for a peer review? Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Your thoughts on "baubles" are well documented, but I hope you'll accept this as a token of my appreciation for all your help with Mike Jackson from GAN to FA. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's good news. You did a fine job with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, on a rather more mature subject.... I was wondering what you thought of this. Its by no means the longest article but I think it is about as good as it could be using online material. An obscure Antarctica lake with a PH like strong Clorox... I think its quite a good one, would it stand chance at GA do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Content-wise it seems fine, but the writing still needs a little bit of work I think. For example:

• "The studies involved 'geomicrobiological explorations to test laser induced fluorescence emission (L.I.F.E.) to be used for the exploration of the Mars regolith and poles; monitor adaptive genetic responses to global climate change; and evaluate methods for detecting hydrocarbon contamination and subsequent bio-remediation in a fragile, endangered ecosystem.'" That doesn't really make sense. "The studies involved ... monitor adaptive genetic responses ..."?
• "Scientists have examined the bottom of the lake by diving. In 2009, Dale Andersen, a scientist with the SETI Institute’s Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, went diving in Lake Untersee to carry out studies on its unique microbial communities." Too many diving scientists there.
• "It is sometimes called a “soap lake” where microbial life system has existed below the lake surface water depth of 2–6 metres (6.6–20 ft) for over 100,000 years." I can't follow that at all.
• "It is also inferred that studies of this lake could decipher 'the origin, adaptation, and evolution of life on Earth'". The passive voice is awkward there; inferred by whom? "Inferred" doesn't quite seem like the right word anyway.

Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback, I'll look into this tomorrow. Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

When I saw this article ... here. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My interest in those kinds of things lies in why people believe in them, much like my interest in God. With the English witches for instance, it's very easy to see the connections between the trials and the Protestant-Catholic schism of the 16th and 17th centuries. I do like those whacky subjects as well though, but you've given me a shed-load of work to do on Maggie. ;-( Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Never let it be said I won't dig in and help. I'll pick up some of those journal articles tomorrow while I'm at the U of I. I've also started working on the Great Psychotic of the Middle Ages, as I liked to think of him in college. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that's one big subject. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

At least I no longer cringe when I see the article. It remains far from "good" but it's no longer full of POV and Victorian/Edwardian wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, when I was driving around earlier today I found myself in "Canute Road", only about a mile or so from where I live. That old boy really got about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR is no small deal - I almost always see this as the first reason for a block for an WP:AGF'ing editor. In addition, please do not remove my comments - see WP:TPG, and refrain from personal attacks. You will likely not be blocked for this though, and I think both of us can do better.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take your hypocritical rubbish elsewhere, as I'm just not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it would maybe be more productive to put away the three letter acronyms when talking to an editor with over 100,000 edits and interact with them without condescendingly treating them like a moron? That's without going onto the issue of what was your message supposed to achieve in the first place (stopping a discussion that had ended an hour ago?) or why you felt it necessary to revert (were you worried your message had not been read?). Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But I have none of the "rights" that grant status, unlike Jasper. I wonder if he knows or can understand why. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nev1, are you talking about Malleus? And he has more edits than me? It does seem likely that I'm only going to pass him by running for admin and blocking him. Nothing personal, Malleus. I'll block Blofeld too, so I can pass him on article creation (I'm only behind him by a factor of one million or so). BTW, what's that I saw, Ubuntu? (Small print is difficult on old eyes.) Sounds interesting, and I'm in the market for a laptop. Then again, I'm a dinosaur--if I can't run WordPerfect, I probably don't want it... Drmies (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This past Xmas I was given a netbook with Windows 7, which does seem to me to be a significant advance on Atari TOS. OTOH computing has moved on significantly since the 1980s; is there a more modern version of Microsoft Windows I can upgrade to? Ning-ning (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard that Windows 3.1 was going to be released soon. >_> — Ched :  ?  13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The speed with which you pull off your edits leads me to ask for a piece of advice: what editing environment do you use? Just the straight Wikipedia textarea interface, or something handier? -Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just the standard wikipedia editor, nothing fancy. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As you say on your userpage, you have an abiding interest in the quirky, so here's a bit of centuries-mulled fun:

Can you contribute anything about the phrase "penny for the Guy?" to the entry "Guy Fawkes Night"? It's totally absent from my dialect—but the phrase seems quite active in the UK. When I googled on it now, the tone of current remarks about its present usage in the UK nearly forced me to replace my CPU's cooling fan. -Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When I was a kid it was comonplace to see children in the street with a guy, asking for a "penny for the guy", supposedly to use the money for buying fireworks, but the custom died out some years ago, don't see it now. Partly I suppose because a penny's practically worthless now and children are no longer allowed to buy fireworks by law. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's rare, but it hasn't died out. I try to reward anyone with a guy. Bloody trick-or-treeters on the other hand can go whistle. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the last time I saw kids in the street with a guy, maybe 10 or so years ago now, they were asking for "50p for the guy". Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that will scan. Poor old guy/with a hole in his sock/and a hole in his shoe/please will you spare him a 50p or two?/if you haven't a 50p/a 20p will do/if you haven't a 20p then God bless you. Naargh, rubbish that, maybe kids today don't have the wit to write new tunes. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your significant copy edits to entry "Guy Fawkes Night" and especially for catching my absolute bungles in rev 425106011, namely, my two typographical errors:

 «In the 1850s changing attitudes» → «In the 1850, changing attitudes»

and

 «18th century reports appear» → «18th century reports, appear»

I usually check these deltas obsessively (literally so) before committing them, but this slipped by—likely because I was creating some redirects in other tabs and looking up the syntax for such in another tab altogether, or because I was giddy with the thought/planning of rolling lighted tar barrels through the streets, or I can blame a cat if that helps.

Aside from those two typographical errors that involved punctuation, what incorrect punctuation have I introduced and must learn from? That is, having said "learn to punctuate correctly before you correct the punctuation of others", can you direct me to your favorite style guide on punctuation?

Although it has been quite a few years since my syntax courses, I think I can handle whatever syntactic framework a discussion of English punctuation must draw on—assuming (safely, oh please, please, safely) that it is not one of the newer frameworks consisting of Let Move Alpha Be The Whole Of The Law!

I ask because I worry that there may be EN-GB / EN-US differences all over Wikipedia that I might mistakenly treat as errors, a situation that no good can come from! For such worries, I would seek the reliably friendly voice of Fowler's Modern English Usage. But I am left in the dark when, on some or other straightforward issue, Fowler's advice is suddenly extremely foreign to me. That is: I cannot tell if it is because England is a foreign country, or because "the past is a foreign country". Both isoglosses can seem to me heavily inked and unhappily indistinguishable.

(When I speak of Fowler's book, I mean OUP first edition, of course. I find the later "adaptations" to be, er, upsetting.)

Salve atque vale!!!!!111!!1 -Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

EN-GB / EN-US and now EN-IND, as at least one article has now been tagged for that, meduck. Ning-ning (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm rather old-fashioned, and still defer to Fowler's revised edition. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing--it doesn't matter how often one proofreads something, there's always something left. Good work. Thanks for fielding 99% of the questions (yesterday and the day before were busy days at work for me). So now we wait for more editors to weigh in? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

With six supports we just have to wait now, and double-check that we've addressed all of the reviewers' comments. FACs are usually left up for at least a week, but barring any unforeseen accidents it's looking like job done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus - I've nominated Olivia to FAC and wanted you to know, should you be interested in reviewing again. Thanks, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. I've had enough of working on Margaret Thatcher for now anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits. Olivia was popular today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For some strange reason mentioning an article on my talk page seems to have that effect. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks too for the copyedits to Georgie. I think writing is hard and it's nice to see someone fix a page I know needs work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the comma after her birth name and before the parenthetic birth info is not formally incorrect, but I'd place it after those dates. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I looked very hard but couldn't find anything wrong with your children. I personally wouldn't call Cohen's a folk tale explanation, but I don't have a better term at hand (his is cultural criticism). I saw you didn't put Robert Burton in, but that's really a very brief and derivative remark anyway. Looks fine to me, Malleus. What's next? FAR--I don't know exactly how that works, really, but I'd be happy to learn. (Does that transclude to the article talk page like GAR?) Drmies (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I was torn between folk tale and folk lore, but I don't think Cohen's is a historical explanation ... maybe folk lore would be better? Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Where I'm at, I'd call it cultural criticism, but our article (cultural critic) hardly covers it, and it strikes me as a pretty US-specific word. Folklore, now that you mention it, is a better term than folk tale, certainly. I don't think it will be problematic at the review, and if so, we can figure something else out. Maybe I'll just rewrite the cultural critic article first. Hey, that is a lot of edits you made--thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I just decided that I really wanted to put this one to bed finally. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made the nomination, so it's game on! Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exciting! I may have a hard time falling asleep tonight. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's almost always a bumpy ride, so hang on! Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. We've got a problem with the two Clark (2006) papers. We need to distinguish between the two, which one is supporting what. Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I see correctly that you fixed that by moving the articles to the footnotes? MLA formatting is easier in this regard, I think. At any rate, the Clark note on beans was mine; yes, that certainly was from the Folklore article. The others you added when you were first working on the article, no? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed "historian" as a modifier for Charles Oman. I am trying to figure out who he was--he can't really be our Charles Oman, given the initials. That Oman died in 1946 and our article dates from 1944, so I thought it might possibly be his son, whom our article describes as having written "several volumes on British silverware and similar housewares," but I can't find anything to prove this with. Our library does not subscribe to the Dictionary of National Biography--do you know anyone who has access to that? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the DNB, Charles Oman had a son called Charles Chichele Oman (1901–1982). Does this help? BigDom (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

YES--thanks! I just reached the same conclusion, that it was the son, and have added that to Charles Oman. Malleus, I am not sure what to call him--feel free to add any profession you like, but I couldn't call him a historian unequivocally. BigDom, do you mind adding that info to Charles Oman? You have the proper reference at hand--and if you can find an entry for his sister, that would be appreciated as well! Drmies (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ODNB also notes he was "Charles Chichele (1901–1982, later a noted antiquary)," ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also found this obituary, originally in The Times, for C.C. Oman. BigDom (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I did yes; my general rule is to reserve the Bibliography for books, for which page numbers are quoted in the Footnotes, and to gather journal articles in the Footnotes, for which only the page number range is given, not the specific page number in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. You're on top of it--I only just had a chance (and the frame of mind) to look at the review. I responded to one of four questions there. And I figured that the Manchester thing was a joke, but you never know. Glad to hear you're having nice weather. So are we: I'm riding my dad's bike today. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably starting to get a feel for the level of scrutiny that articles are subjected to at FAC, but it's all to the good. The article has already been improved, pass or fail. The important thing is to keep on top of the review. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<--I love antiquaries. Thank you both. Malleus, the LadyofShalott dropped a few links on the article talk page, including this one. I think it's worth including in the "Literary legacy" section. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just another re-telling of the story isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as is this, its source, by Thomas Keightley (historian)--which predates Herbert Read by 80 years. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain, so do whatever you think is best. Obviously though Read wasn't retelling the story of the green children, it was simply his inspiration. The question in my mind is whether or not Keightley's book is significant enough to mention, and I'm dubious. Unless we can make a case that it brought the green children back into the public eye? Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I think happened. I personally think that (like Godwin) Burton and Keightley deserve mention, but making the case that this brought them back from obscurity will be impossible by WP and FA standards--I have found nothing to verify that, and verifiability trumps suspected truth. So I don't know. I might bring them in when the spirit moves me; in any other article I would have done so already. In other news, I've been looking for Crossley-Holland's email address (or that of Alan Marks, the illustrator) but to no avail: I've not found it on his website. I'd love to get permission to include an image from his book (I've been reading his translations of A-S poetry for decades, so he owes me, haha) and I'll keep trying. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use an image would be great, so good luck with that. I'll give some thought to making the case for including Keightley in particular, but obviously anything we claim has to be supported by reliable sources, as you know. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Godwin is in because Lawton mentions him--is even mentioning those accounts out because it could be based only on primary evidence, the texts themselves? Drmies (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Relying on the original texts isn't necessarily primary evidence, it depends on what we're relying on them for, and what inferences we draw from them. For instance, it's commonplace for the Plot section of literary articles to be completely uncited, as the novel is its own source. I think I'm beginning to see a consistent way of tackling this, but in the meantime I've got other things I need to be doing, so later. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Burton and Godwin are integrated into the article now, just leaves Keightley. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That was fancy footwork, that alien transition. Kudos. Keightley might could fit in the folklore explanations--he's retelling fairy tales. BTW, my apologies for one of my temporary house guests sticking an 8 in your name; I don't know why they did that. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that with a little more "fancy footwork" I can get Keightley in there as well, if the children don't get me blocked first. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't do polls here, but I'm curious to know what it is that content editors find discouraging about the way that wikipedia is run. I'll start:

• New editors are valued above established editors. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Established editors are dealt with more harshly than new editors, even the most obvious vandals, as they're expected to already understand wikipedia's arcane rules. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Very few administrators have written anything worth spit, and fail to understand the frustrations experienced by those who do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps RHM22's promotion today marks a change in the rather contemptuous attitude the community has had towards admin candidates with writing skills.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch RfA any more. It is what it is and nothing can change it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, the most discouraging thing about Wikipedia is that you can't do polls.-RHM22 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the power imbalance between administrators and content editors. The longer a content editor edits, and the more useful the edits, the more the editor is at risk.

• There is an increasingly large and increasingly entrenched admin corp, all with tenure for life, without review. They cannot really be desopped short of attacking other administrators or going completely mad.
• The admin corps now controls any procedures concerning their own privileges. Like the rulers of Myanmar, they determine the rules governing their own power base.
• There is mostly silence now from content editors on these issues. Some admins say that is because there are no problems. Maybe the rulers of Myanmar feel that way too.
• Admins are usually elected on the basis of a small skill set, such as work on article deletions, or categories, or spam, or vandalism. Often just a sliver of skills. They are then given the full suite of admin privileges, including draconian powers to block other established editors. Why do they need to block other editors to carry out the tasks they said they wanted to do? And how does the ability to handle spam in any way give them the skills to apply blocks to highly productive, long term content editors?

The admin privileges need to be unbundled, with specific privileges handed out to the users who need them. The ability to block vandals should also be available to any established editor who wants the privilege. Review procedures would be easy to set up to ensure standards are maintained. Privileges in specific areas can be withdrawn and regranted as appropriate. The ability to block established editors is another matter altogether. Perhaps a form of the current RfA process could be retained for that, and perhaps the term "administrator" could be retained for those users.

There is no way the administrator class is going to unwind their own privileges. There is a current pretense at reform, called Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011. When I raised the issues above, they just fell into a black hole, and I was warned that I was nonconstructive, and to be quiet. The administrators and administrator wannabees controlling this debate are not at all interested in reform, but only in propping up and further securing the status quo. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right Epipelagic. Expecting the turkeys to vote for Christmas (Thanksgiving?) has never proved to be a successful strategy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue at the reform discussion is that it is defined by what the coumuinity *coughadminscough* will accept. I personaly would love to get behind that epipelagic, but currently I can't imagine them accepting it. --In actu (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So maybe the only way forward is for the serfs to rebel. Or at least, for content editors to start reframing the way they interpret things. We could start by regarding blocks as awards of honour and integrity, something to display proudly on our user pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

• I am not sure if you would consider me a "content editor" Malleus, especially as I have not yet managed to do my share on preparing Maggie for promotion, but I'll comment anyway. My biggest complaint is the "Randy from Boise" meme that we see so often; Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and the "anyone can edit" model means that people who cannot write, or (more seriously) cannot tell the difference between facts and advocacy positions, believe it is their right to have articles reflect their own position on a subject, regardless of what reliable sources say. It doesn't help when User:Jimbo Wales encourages them. Overall though I think it is still a nicer and more welcoming place than most online environments; having a mission (an encyclopedia to write) generally screens out the most unsuitable people, but I find as I get older (and like you I am ancient in Wiki-time) the occasional squabbles and nonsense one sees weigh heavier over time. I also have close to zero confidence in Arbcom (the institution, not the current incumbents, some of whom are ok), but that is one for another day. I will try to get some work done on the Thatcher article tonight or tomorrow; having time off hasn't been as relaxing as I had hoped and my days have filled up with stuff, not all of it bad, but it has precluded my putting time into it so far. Sorry. --John (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Maggie was always going to be a tough one, but we can each only do what we can, when we can. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your understanding. I haven't even looked at what you did with it yet, though I saw you had been working on it. I promise to at least look tonight. --John (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) We've already done the important stuff, so there's no urgent need to do anything else. Maggie is now back to being a good article; we reversed the slide. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I can get two articles on Chamberlain to FA, you guys can get one on Maggie! Seriously, I think the admin menace is overstated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well you would say that, wouldn't you." Things look a little different out here among the plebians. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye open for the pitchfork and torches brigade, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that there are quite a few rude administrators, that's true of regular users as well. Assuming that the 1,500+ administrators are a subsection of regular members, you're going to get a lot of rude people.-RHM22 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Odds are we're not a representative sample of the population! And Malleus, come on, you know I haven't blocked an autoconfirmed user in at least a year!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This "you know I haven't blocked an autoconfirmed user in at least a year!"–type response from administrators is entirely off topic. That's another problem, that as soon as some generalised statement is made, such as "Some administrators...", then some (many?) administrators assume a personal attack has been made on them. "Most administrator are fine." That seems definitely true to me. And that's one statement you can take personally Wehwalt. However, RHM22, if admins are to be given the right to block and jerk the rest of us about, then there should be some sort of quid pro. They might at least be expected to behave with some basic intelligence and sensitivity. That's not always my experience, nor my recent experience (and that is definitely nothing to do with you, Wehwalt, nor you, RHM22). --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think they have the right to "jerk us around". At least they're not supposed to. What is allowed and what happens in practice are two different things, though.-RHM22 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to walk that far on eggshells, Epipalagic, I do not take offense easily. The only thing I can offer in the system's defense is that we have no better.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Editing policy is not followed by admins who have a fixation on the whack-the-mole measures encouraged by the deletion policies (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV). Editors who add to articles are considered vandals as often as people who remove content.
• What is commonly considered "good experience" at an RfA.
• The spirit of WP:IAR (something that I believe tends to be an content contributor friendly policy) is dead.
• WP:AGF is grossly applied. Actions speak louder than words, but admins seem to look at words and not actions.
• There seem to be more backseat busybodies than article contributors and the current environment attracts them.
• The system easily allows backseat busybodies to congregate and work together (they have their dedicated watchlists) but article contributors face more hurdles (you cannot solicit support because that would be canvassing). Lambanog (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing demands that editors actually research the articles they spend so much time on talk pages complaining about. The pillar of verifiability is ignored because people would rather argue on talk pages than read the sources to discuss them intelligently. The culture here asks nothing challenging of new editors and time and again I run across experienced editors or ones who have been placed in high positions of respect who go to talk pages and give their two cents, often in complete ignorance that their opinions are completely unsupported by the cited sources. It's a mind-boggling position to be in, and I get tired of saying over and over: find a source, now find a better one. Go do the work. Then receive the ire of editors who think I'm being arrogant. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The feeling among some editors that books and journal articles, that can't be viewed for free, are second class citations is troubling. --In actu (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a concern, and perhaps a symptom of the overall problem that editors seem to want to rely on their own perceptions or singular knowledge without exploring how that knowledge was formed. It's the attitude of "I don't have to get a book to say I'm right, I just am. If a book or 20 say I'm wrong, you, who has summarized these books in this article, are clearly pushing your POV, and I don't have to read these books to condemn them." --Moni3 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Moni) Or that using say, Dictionary of National Biography articles is "better" than using Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles, because the first is free to everyone and the second is only free to UK library subscribers. Never mind the 110 year difference in scholarship (and the turgid prose and Edwardian/Victorian POV), I've seen it argued that we should use the DNB before the ODNB. It's like competence isn't required to edit, merely civility, which is so wrong on so many counts it's not even funny. I took the latest Wikipedia Foundation survey today, and found it unsettling. More questions seemed aimed at "how close is editing WP to FB, and what would make it cooler/more social media/etc to you?". Does no one remember we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia??? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly of that when I edit conflicted with you in posting "The attitude I find most troubling is that if there are two sources for the same thing, one online and the other a book or journal article, then the online one has to be preferred, as it's easier to check than a printed source. Regardless of the quality of the sources that is." Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I just completed that survey and almost didn't do it after I saw the questions about the top two adjectives to describe interactions with other editors (I chose "helpful" and "unhelpful" because ... how pointless could I be if I tried?) and the question about how to get a reputation on Wikipedia. Stupid question. Bad too. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I chose 'helpful' and 'unhelpful' too and though huh? they're canceling each other out, so replaced 'unhelpful' with 'rude'. Very surprised to see the reputation question, but I shouldn't be. Apparently only a few editors are writing an encyclopedia, the rest are looking for a good rep. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have chosen "Only idiots try to get a reputation on Wikipedia" but it wasn't available. In it's absence, I'd have liked to see the #1 way to get a rep here as "Sleep your way to the top". --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person on this entire site not to have seen this survey? FWIW, I'd say print sources are almost always superior to online sources, since online sources have a nasty habit of (a) changing after you've cited them, and (b) showing something different depending on who's doing the viewing. (Can't be bothered to look up the diffs, but I'm sure you remember that thread where various people were explaining, with increasing exasperation, that Google Books serves up different versions depending on the country of the viewer and their browser settings.) – iridescent 22:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread which then resulted in an RfC. Oh well. Yesterday I went to the library in a downpour, walking out with an armload of book, thunder and lightning all around, and began to wonder about my sanity. But the books are so much better to have when you need them - I always go to print sources first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't seen the survey either. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of online versus offline references, the way that most new editors first encounter Wikipedia policy is to get their first article deleted, and the perception that most of them take away from this process is that their article is being deleted because there are insufficient online references available; and that offline references are not relevant or even permissible. I've seen that over and over again. Latest example from earlier today (although actually he's correct the subject is not notable). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best example you could have chosen to make your point. For stuff like that there's often only online material available. Having said that, the article does look like a lot of huff and puff about nothing very much. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That survey highlights one of the major problems - the foundation is simply out of touch with the Wikipedia community.. both in terms of the dynamics and the ideals. :S The treatment of book [& scholarly paid-for] sources are a major bug bear of mine. Far too many people think that RS means "online newspaper". It's also incredibly tedious trying to navigate a content dispute where it slowly becomes clear that no one has read the books. I mean, forgive me for being old fashioned and all, but to my mind the first step in debating a source is to read it :S --Errant ^(chat!) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Google snippets won't cut it as far as I'm concerned. A broad basis of just knowledge is needed to edit most articles, so you know what the current state of research is, and the background. You need to read the full context of something, which usually requires reading books, not just googling things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've sometimes found Google snippets useful in searching through a book to find exactly which page something or other is discussed on, much easier than thumbing through the book itself, but I do find the growing trend of providing Google links in references to be mildly irritating. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But that requires some effort Errantx. I've even bought some books that I couldn't easily get hold of elsewhere, just to help with an article, and I know I'm not alone. One that sticks in my mind is Roy of the Rovers, a book on a comic feature that I'd never even read as a kid. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

True enough. I spent quite a lot on sourcing Digital forensics, the GA reviewer commented; WP is a free collaboration and you should not invest any more in it than you are paid for contributing to it Which on one hand is a reasonable point (obviously accessing books, short term, for free is relatively easy) but I think it highlights an important point... that we don't spend enough time finding, accessing and reading sources to compile material before writing the words. I'm planning some contributions to Wright brothers that has taken about 3 months to research (happened to pick up a book about them second hand that twigged my interest). Computer forensics is a pile of drafted notes on my desk here at home (6 months+ in the making so far). Far too many articles are cobbled together based on what the BBC said about it, and not from a genuine interest in the subject. The latter of which is probably another core problem. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously some articles are easier to research than others. I'd contrast Cotswold Olimpick Games with Margaret Thatcher for instance, although even for the Games I had to buy another book. To pick up on Ealdgyth's point, it's very hard to write about something you have no background knowledge of or interest in, but bizarrely I tend to avoid those areas that I know most about. Largely because I can't be bothered to argue the toss with kids who've got no idea what they're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an advantage to my field... no one else here seems even remotely interested :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Digital forensics is a subject I know a little about, so beware! ;-) Generally though I prefer to stretch myself by learning about new stuff. I'm almost embarrassed now to reflect on how little I understood Herbert Read's novel The Green Child before I embarked on that article, or even how to approach a literary topic, but I learned a great deal from writing it, with lots of help, obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Input definitely welcome. Especially criticism. The prose is a bit turgid I fear, and I have a few pre-conceived notions (from doing the damn thing) that probably need beating out of me. If you have time to take a look and throw out some pointers, eternally in your debt :) if not, no worries. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I keep meaning to do more with computing articles in general, but selfish as it may seem I don't learn very much from working on them, which is a large part of the attraction for me. Added to which it's exhaustingly tedious looking for reliable sources to back up straightforward stuff that anyone with half a brain working in the field knows to be correct. Nevertheless you're piqued my interest. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! it's exhaustingly tedious looking for reliable sources to back up straightforward stuff that anyone with half a brain working in the field knows to be correct "Amen" to that. If I was absolutely honest there are parts of that article I wrote from knowledge.. and dropped references to them as and when I came across a good one :) I think I have just about half a brain (opinion is generally divided on that one), and it is only me in that subject area. So it might be the perfect place to whet your appetite :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Broad Ripple Park Carousel was quite rushed for me, it took me about a month of research and writing to get it mostly ready for FAC. Much more typical is Hygeberht, which I just put up for FAC today. My first edit to the article was in August 2007, (it looked like this right before), but the serious work on it started in March 2009 (was what it looked like before that series), and it look multiple trips to the library as well as lots of reading to get it to its current status (And LOTS of greatly-appreciated copyediting by Malleus and Mike)... a lot of folks don't seem to think that effort is worth it, but what Wikipedia has is now a better, fuller article than the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (here for reference). (1500+ words for WP, 350+ for ODNB). Of course, to get that took much more effort than it seems a lot of people want to spend. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 3.8 million or so articles are mostly crap, no argument about that, but there are an increasing number of examples where wikipedia's article is the best available online. And IMO that's largely because they're not written to a deadline, by an author with no axe to grind except to present all the facts as neutrally as possible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which should I work on next? Theobald of Bec - rather bland Archbishop of Canterbury, Liber Eliensis - a historical document, Gerard (archbishop of York) - an Archbishop of York who was suspected of heresy/witchcraft, Richard Barre - a canon lawyer and Archdeacon of Ely, Skipper W - a Quarter horse stallion who got his chance when his sire broke his neck, or Fairfax Harrison - an American railroad president and writer on Thoroughbreds and genealogy .... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The first two seem to be pretty close already, though I'll admit I only glanced at their prose. Richard Barre might be an interesting choice. ceranthor 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any medieval bishops that were involved with horses in a significant way? That would be an interesting cross-over article.-RHM22 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I've run across. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Barre might be good (didn't realise we had an article on him), as it's been suggested that he married the green girl. Otherwise I fancy Gerard. Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to mention that in his article? I've never run across any intimations that he was married though (and given his time frame, it's unlikely he would have been officially married ... as he was an archdeacon). Are you sure this is the correct Richard Barre being referred to by the green person scholar? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unlikely, but not impossible... Drmies (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just speculation by Duncan Lunan based on his research into Richard de Calne's family background. But as you say, the balance of probability is that Barre wasn't married at all, which is what I think at least some other researchers believe. I just thought it was a curious coincidence that you mentioned him here as one of your possible next candidates, that's all. As to whether or not to mention this possible marriage in Barre's article, that's entirely up to you. I probably would, but then I'm a fan of the quirky. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. He's an astronomer and science writer... I'm thinking keeping it out as nothing else is even mentioning the possibilty (ODNB, Fasti, etc.). I just don't know how prominent the green children folklore thing is, honestly. If it's a well known incident in England, then perhaps I could see a mention, but if it's an obscure bit of folklore, then probably not. (I.e. are we talking Lady Godiva/Robin Hood level of knowledge or are we talking strictly local history.) I've not got a problem with taking Barre up to FAC, he's obscure, but definitely interesting, as he'd be considered one of hte early legal scholars for England. I like Gerard too, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of the green children is by no stretch of the imagination anything like as well known as Lady Godiva or Robin Hood. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there aren't any horse bishops (17th Earl of Sæbiscuit), I like the Liber Eliensis article. I like articles about historians and texts.-RHM22 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If I bothered you. Have a good one. Swarm ^X 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't bother me at all, I just think you're talking cack. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise :). Regards, Swarm ^X 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And I hate IS CONSIDERED TO BE! An abominable passive that ought to be buuuuuurrrrrrrrrned. Check your mail before the mailbox explodes. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. Lots more pointers to help improve my writing. :) Anyway, much appreciated, it reads a lot easier in places now. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made those last tweaks, and would greatly appreciate your wondeful fine-toothed-comb going over the thing one more time before I nom at FAC. Eventually the carousel has to be promotoed, right?? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I always see "pallium" used with the definite article--.02¢ from Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see it used that way. See the ODNB entry for Anselm of Canterbury - "The strictly legal view was that Anselm was not empowered to exercise his archiepiscopal functions until he had received his pallium from the pope..." or for Berhtwald "...subsequent journey to Rome to receive his pallium from Pope Sergius..." or Nothhelm "... the archbishopric of York being established about that time (and probably a little earlier than Nothhelm's consecration) by the gift of a pallium from Pope Gregory III to Ecgberht...". Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@Talbot1954 (in the style of PASE), p. 48: "Furthermore, he gave the archiepiscopal pallium to the envoys...". I meant "the" as opposed to "a", not to other determiners. Your Nothhelm quote, that's the first time I see "a" pallium. But anyway... Drmies (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you want me to look over Maggie for you guys, by the way? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do, that would be great! Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The carousel is already an FA in all but name, patience grasshopper. I'll take a look at the old boy later; got a few other things to do first. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you and John won't kill me for the monster list... done with Maggie. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ealdgyth. Doesn't faze me in the slightest as John will probably have to deal with most of that; I'm a little tied up with 12-century aliens for the next day or so. Some useful reminders there about what Yanks might or might not be reasonably expected to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What you two have done with Mrs. Thatcher is truly impressive. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is right; it's not yet quite the finished article, but we'll get there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"What you two have done with Mrs. Thatcher is truly impressive." Oh do tell - what have you done with her? I know what many people would like to have done with her when she was in power :) Richerman (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to admit to being ambivalent about Thatcher. She did many things I didn't approve of, and as a student I attended marches against her; the "Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher" one stands out in my memory as that was where I met my wife. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

... which makes me think that all of these dating agencies have got it all wrong. Just do stuff and you'll meet people, it'll happen naturally, but don't go hunting for them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Had a chance to check him over? Any TPSs are welcome to butt in also... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look him over this evening. Been trying to mop up a few FAC issues on my green children. Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Obviously I should stick with bishops for nominations... much quicker supports this time around... now I gotta figure out what goes up next! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your energy for FAC quite simply astonishes me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When my other option is yard work in the pouring rain ... or code... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gees, I really SHOULD stick to bishops .. six supports in under two days??? Yowsers, as the "meddling teenagers" used to say! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You've actually got two FACs running that got six supports in two days. Here's the other one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You cheeky little bugger! (Did I get the accent right there?) Or, to use an Americanism, you brat! (Be glad I'm not calling you what I call my horses - "goober brain" when they are being particularly equinish is a favorite). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the references you provided I couldn't have written it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To your question: Typically, the rank someone has is capitalized. The best example of this can be found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite simply wrong. The rank is capitalised if it's used as part of a person's name, such as in "Captain Mainwairing", but not when used on its own, as in "he was a captain in the Home Guard". Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I really do wish that those so keen to serve up blue links had actually read and preferably understood themselves. Your source very clearly says "Address all personnel with the rank of general as 'General (last name)'". Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's what a review is for. Anywho, I have made the changes you requested, you said there were more that were needed, please let me know where, so I can make those changes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC is for assessing whether or not an article meets the FA criteria, it's not an article improvement workshop. I've just realised though that you and I had a recent difference of opinion on a current RfA, so I will be excusing myself from any further comment at Buckles' FAC for the obvious reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, whatever, should I disregard your oppose or would you like to change it since your concerns have been addressed? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You delude yourself; my concerns have not been addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? Examples are helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've given you examples, but you seem to think that once they're fixed everything is hunky-dory. But they're just examples. Geddit? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look over at the FAC page, you will see only one of those points I think are "hunky-dory", the rest were changed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Your requested changes have been made and your oppose will be disregarded at the end due to your unwillingness to be forthcoming with further information and examples on what problems you see on the page. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. The article is rather poorly written and needs a lot of work to meet the FAC prose requirement. I think it's even marginal for GA. And let me remind you that it's not your prerogative to ignore anyone's opinion at FAC. That's a decision taken by the delegates. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, Malleus, if you do bow out (which I hope you won't), would you please correct the bit about peer review? There was already a PR for this article. Anyway, a full 33% of your examples were overuse of the word "also" which I had not previously realized was a bad habit of mine. It's now corrected throughout the article, so I assume you agree the article is now 33% better. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Final response: It passed GA without you, it passed A-Class without you, over 20 people said it was clearly a GA and clearly an A-Class. Your opinion now that it is "even marginal for GA" is moot and unfounded, since you weren't part of the reviews and hell you didn't help with the creation or editing of the article until now. The only reason you have "wandered" by is because you and I got into a pissin' match on Dylan620's RfA and you are trying to get back to me. Big whoop. You can do your worst and it won't mean anything, it's a website. I have had an oppose on my last FAC and got it overturned for the same behavior you are showing now, unwilling to be forthcoming with further information and examples. So, again, do your worst, you don't bother me and your opinions on an article that over 20 people have worked on, they don't mean squat to me. Move along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. (Weren't you the one demanding that I AGF at Dylan's RfA, or am I thinking of another of your buddies?) How many times do I have to say that I think the article is rather poorly written and does not meet the FAC prose requirement? Let me give you a few more examples:

• "When America entered World War I, Buckles sought to enlist in the armed forces." He didn't try to enlist when America joined the war, but after American joined the war.
• "... and by the Navy, who incorrectly diagnosed him as having flat feet" Since when was the Navy a person? Same with "Army" in the next sentence.
• "He was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, and helped to alleviate their hunger by providing food." Where did he get this food from?
• "As the interwar period began ...". Periods don't begin.
• "In the 1930s, he listened as German and British passengers expressed fears about the Nazis, and military officers told him that Germany was equipping for war." Does that really make any kind of sense to you?
• "Also during the 1930s, he received an Army bonus of $800 ...". Another one of those rogue "also"s.
• "By 1942, Buckles had worked for the White Star, American President, and W.R. Grace shipping companies, and shipping business took him to Manila in the Philippines." Trying to cram too much into one sentence, and consequently it doesn't make sense.

Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your further examples:

• "When America entered World War I, Buckles sought to enlist in the armed forces." Changing "when" to "after" would convey no sense of how long after. It's perfectly proper to use the word "when" to describe one action that closely follows another.
• "... and by the Navy, who incorrectly diagnosed him as having flat feet" Groups of people are often referred to as "who".
• "He was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, and helped to alleviate their hunger by providing food." The source does not say where he got the food from, if I recall correctly, but will double-check.
• "As the interwar period began ...". Periods begin all the time. So do intervals and eras.
• "In the 1930s, he listened as German and British passengers expressed fears about the Nazis, and military officers told him that Germany was equipping for war." Makes sense to me, and evidently to the sources (also).
• "Also during the 1930s, he received an Army bonus of $800 ...". The word "also" serves a good and valid purpose there, reminding the reader that everything before and after that word are in the same decade.
• "By 1942, Buckles had worked for the White Star, American President, and W.R. Grace shipping companies, and shipping business took him to Manila in the Philippines." It's not a long sentence, and readers are presumably not feebleminded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit what you think. I won't be changing my mind; this article is not of FA quality in my opinion, no matter how much you try to browbeat me (a hopeless task) into admitting that it is. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was doing you the courtesy of a reply. I agree with you that it might not be FA class, but not for your "further" reasons. Farewell, Fatuorum, for our first fight fell flat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For you perhaps, but for me it further demonstrates the dangers of handing the reins to children. They have no context, and simply do whatever they think is required to avoid criticism. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As a well-known interloper and smacker-of-heads-together: I would hope that the creator of the effluvia article Tickle Cock Bridge would not only not be proud that this 12 reference joke is considered a "GA", but would not stand in the way of others trying to make a far more notable subject into a FA. Ban me from your page if you will, but don't let your influence mar the efforts of others. There, I've said it. Cheers to all of you. Doc talk 04:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "standing in the way" and "letting pass despite deficiencies". I also agree that the article does not currently meet WP:WIAFA, although for different reasons than the ones Malleus has put forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm shattered that you consider my masterpiece on an admittedly rather undistinguished underpass to be "effluvia" Doc, which is a plural noun by the way, but I suppose you think you know best even though you clearly don't. Why not try taking it to AfD and see what the adults think? Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly your masterpiece. But it's a "GA"? How the hell did that happen? And I would never nominate it for AfD as its not a bad article. It's just not "up to snuff" to be considered a GA. I have respect for all editors concerned and was merely making a point. Doc talk 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAR, if you're concerned. I'm not, personally, but as you will. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As we're hardly likely to agree I'd suggest it would be better for you to confine your comments to Buckles' FAC. And as must be obvious I think that you're an idiot. If you don't believe that Tickle Cock Bridge meets the GA criteria then take it to GAR as Nikkimaria suggests, and see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite wrong about that, but I'm not surprised at your assessment. And usually "children" call each other names like "idiot". You shouldn't presume to think you're any more grown up than any of us, and therefore know what makes a truly good article and can wield their stick over it. Doc talk 04:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but note that this bullshit started after I opposed everyone's favourite new child admin candidate. I'm just not interested. Make your case at GAR if you can, not here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles is already a GA. So is Tickle Cock Bridge. Nobody is taking it to GAR: it's a freaking example, geddit? Apples vs. oranges, really. Try to take criticism of your own work in a little better stride, and don't urinate all over the little ones who are trying hard; but may need some encouragement without getting the patented treatment from you, and don't actually need your support if or when you feel like it to get it to FA. Doc talk 05:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Take your nonsense somewhere else, where it may be more appreciated. I find it tediously boring and repetitive. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"this 12 reference joke" - Powerful advice from an editor with only 41% of his edits made to articles. Someone clearly doesn't understand the GA criteria. Parrot of Doom 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Squawk off ;> I spend a lot of time keeping crap out of not only articles either one of you would write, but warning vandals not to do it again. Hence the user talk pie chunk. The dispute is over. G'night :> Doc talk 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide whether it's over or not. I suggest that you reflect on your behaviour here. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, so despite working so hard to keep the vandals at bay, something you might just be good at, you feel expert enough to comment on whether or not an article meets the GA criteria, even when it's clear you're not. Ok. Parrot of Doom 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, any registered user is expert enough to decide whether or not an article is GA quality.-RHM22 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but there has been a recent case of a user being topic-banned from reviewing at GAN, so you're clearly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say pretty much the same thing as Malleus. Not everyone is able to assess whether an article meets the GA criteria. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You got me there!-RHM22 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How's this for a DYK hook - "... that in 1677 the pope's belly was filled with live cats, "who squalled most hideously" as his body was burnt on a fire?" Parrot of Doom 20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2009 I created an article about Broughton Suspension Bridge (a surprisingly infamous little bridge) put it up for DYK and it got 4.2K hits. It recently went on the 'on this day' section and got 26.2K hits. As DYK and 'on this day' are both on the main page, and the hook for DYK contained the same information as the 'on this day' one (plus some more) can anyone think of any reason why there was such a big discrepancy in the number of hits? Richerman (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not many people bother looking at DYK, which should really be renamed "Do You Care"? There's more of a historical connection with "On this day" in any event, which probably accounts for the discrepancy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

or DYGAFF maybe? Richerman (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked the idea to devote some space in that area to GAs, which are exemplars of our improving (but not yet perfect) content. That would create a bit of competition for space so that only "most-interesting" and rigourously-checked DYKs get prime-time, rather than the somewhat indiscriminate approach taken nowadays. No diss to the hard-working people involved in DYK, it just seems to me that if it can be squeezed in it will be / we have a demanding time schedule and we need content. Really, when even I have 2 DYK stars to boast of, you should be thinking there is a problem with the organization of the main page. :) Franamax (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked that idea as well, but it won't fly; wikipedia is ossifying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what they really need to do is only put up the hooks that are interesting from articles that are well written. At the moment if you put something up it's virtually guaranteed to appear on the front page however uninteresting it is and however badly written the article is. Richerman (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In many cases it's obvious that the DYK reviewers haven't even read the articles. Which would be no great task, as many of them are little more than stubs. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately most proposers now have to review an article themselves before their hook is considered, so they are mostly done by inexperienced reviewers who may not be very motivated. The last time I reviewed one I ended up completely rewriting the article as it was abysmal. Richerman (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The biggest factor is that the article would have remained on the front page for a 24 hours in the "on this day" section whereas DYKs are renewed up to four times a day. When an article appears on DYK also effects the number of views so the six hour period when the US is in bed is difficult to compare with a whole day. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see - I hadn't realised that. Actually, what I said above isn't quite correct - there was some new information in the 'on this day' hook. I thought there was a sudden outbreak of interest in mechanical resonance :) Richerman (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you can see why Nev1's an administrator and we're not; that incisive brain. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A trait common to all admins of course :) Richerman (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and copy-edit. I think I've answered everything now, as far as is possible. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I mangled it while trying to clarify it. I've tried again; the point I'm labouring to make is that amateurs would never dare become a professional as it was a huge social step down. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on the article! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. I like these little out of the mainstream articles, and I hope you'll continue writing them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think i'm mostly done adding stuff. There's one description of him by Herbert of Bosham I'd love to track down, but all I have at the moment is a paraphrase. I have some books on Becket sitting at the U of I waiting for the rain to let up so I can pick them up, and there may be a few more tidbits in them about Barre. Otherwise, he's substantially ready for the pickiness to start. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The pickiness will begin imminently. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. I'll probably wait until Mike's had his look through. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about how to deal with what's-his-name's idea that Barre married the green girl. I may have to get that book where he discusses that... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Duncan Lunan. It was in an article published in Analog magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pssstt... it's not in the bibliography. Oops? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right! How the Hell did that happen? I'll try and find it again. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The green children stole it to preserve their secret? (tongue very firmly in cheek). Hope you can find it, as U of I has Analog - any idea of a year range? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was in the September 1996 issue; I'm adding the details now. I think that Lunan has in fact published a book with more details of his research since then; I'll see if I can root it out. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Malleus and friends,

I cleaned up the prose of a stub article, Branching random walk, which I moved to Branching random-walk, to avoid ambiguity.

(The "branching" comes from branching process, and "branching" modifies "random walk".)

At the WP project for mathematics, my English competency has been questioned: I have a "tin ear" and although I "claim" to have professional competence of English, I don't seem to have the command of a "native speaker". "Totally"²

It is like having my pronunciation of "nuclear" corrected by George W. Bush.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So what's new? Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mathematics Project is usually a haven in a heartless WP!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere's safe. I get chased from pillar to post. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been over-ruled on hyphenation before, where I have displayed an exaggerated fear of ambiguity. ;-)

This is the second time that I've been asked whether I am an native English speaker, or even a native speaker of USA English! ;-) (Previously, my use of the subjunctive and my (mathematician's stereotypical) use of "yield" provoked the solicitation about my problems with English ....)

Has anybody ever asked you about "your problems with the English language" (LOL, as the kids say), perhaps due to your not having been raised in Texas?

No, but I'm often accused of being immature, usually by 12-year-old children. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I thought you were joking. 03:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Exercising a long-neglected retort, "I'm rubber and you're glue ...", is a temptation ... (with adults 03:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In your absence, the youth at AFD RfA have been behaving better than a few grownups, who have been loosing their slings and arrows of paraconsistent logic ... again ... in your direction.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say AFD do you mean RfA?

Thanks for the correction.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it's heretical to suggest that children ought not be in charge of anything on wikipedia, so all the righteous indignation being expressed by the clearly deluded is no surprise at all. Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to explain my drawing attention to the candidate's meritorious work on farts and penis-pictures. The question of maturity had been raised, after all.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My prayers for an end of the querulous droning remain unanswered.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us hope that the souls that previously harassed you have found more peaceful and productive pursuits .... One of them seemed to have calmed down before the present vacation, and I hope for his best.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your well hyphenated "pillar" is another great article: I shall read it immediately. (Poor Turing, poor humanity!)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		For mildly commenting "This is ridiculous" when restoring the scary-clown image to Coulrophobia  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody proposed creating (on a user-space page) a collection of your best comments: This is one of my favorites:

Well, Dylan's RfA has 72 supports, so i guess 72 established users are dumb and you're super smart right? Pass a Method talk 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That about sums it up nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are limiting it to 72?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many here who would say that I don't need any such encouragement Kiefer. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just a shame that the circumstances weren't better. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No broken bones or other permanent damage, I suspect. This too will pass. And anger had been boiling in me ever since the article I alluded to met its fate. I'm glad to have it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As I sit here expanding Guy Fawkes Night (which still has a long way to go) with material from a good book I've bought, I find myself wondering what happened to the people who complained about the article's lack of detail and "massive holes". Would I be foolish to presume that they've ordered some quality sources of their own, and are eagerly awaiting their arrival? Or are they still sat in the rafters, like pigeons shitting on those unfortunate enough to walk below? Parrot of Doom 18:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You would indeed be foolish to assume that they've invested any effort at all. Where would be the fun in doing that? Much easier to argue the toss about whether the References section should be called Notes. Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reed is primarly an art critic, very readable, and not epically mad. Painting him as an anarchist, in the context of green children, is a bit unfair. Grand article though. Ceoil 18:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it unfair? He was an anarchist. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't yet been a lengthy discussion here today, so I will start one: how could anyone possibly think that anarchy would be a good idea?-RHM22 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If I have the wealth and guns, I might be moved to support it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but most of the anarchists (at least the Americans that I know of) weren't really wealthy or all that well-armed.-RHM22 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Thus, they did not win.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They did kill the president though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And democracy showed its strength.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt was a good president also.-RHM22 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to drop in a drive-by plug for The Dispossessed and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, two generally overlooked gems of 1960s/70s hack SF, which between them are a much better guide to the anarchist philosophy than any political reference text I can think of. The former in particular gives a very good illustration of the pros and cons of anarcho-syndicalism without veering into the Randroid utopianism of the latter. In the 20th century communism eclipsed anarchism so completely as the student-rebellious-phase of choice, it's easy to forget just how influential the anarchists were in terms of pre-1917 radical extremist groups. – iridescent 23:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is a little above my paygrade.-RHM22 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If Iridescent submitted it at FAC, I'd have a couple of pages of urgent comments! :)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've interacted previously (so I really don't have an axe to grind), but I was reading through a (actually, the only current) RfA and I noticed that your tone was overtly hostile toward those who disagreed with you. This edit was the first to catch my eye, and regardless of context seems inappropriate (attacking a fellow editor, name calling, questioning their honesty). Reading further I found others, such as here where you call an editor "delusional" and when the editor asked you if you thought other editors were "dumb" you fully agreed with that summary; other examples: [1][2][3]. I thought maybe you were having a bad day, but farther back there are more: [4] including numerous discussions at your page, e.g. this one. Obviously you've been party to all of these, but I thought the trend was so strongly negative that it would help to point it out, and I hope you'll seriously reconsider. I realize you have a lot more WP experience than I do, but I do think the project would benefit from less antagonism - you can disagree without insulting people. I hope you'll take this in the constructive spirit that's intended. -- Scray (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take your sanctimonious claptrap elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "sanctimonious" means what you think it means, but I get the message that you don't care about what I said. -- Scray (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I know you think you're helping, but MF's from a culture that isn't relentlessly polite such as the Japanese or even Americans (who while considered rude by the Japanese, are considered entirely too "have a nice day" by the Brits). Blunt speaking is not necessarily hostile, but may just be blunt in some cultures. Your tone in coming sounded quite a bit "preachy" to me, and I'm American. I can only imagine how it would sound to someone from Manchester or elsewhere in England. What exactly did you expect him to do, suddenly see the light because of the splendor of your diffs? I note you looked into the archives and various other archives, so surely you could guess that this is how MF is normally, so what was the point? To some, it'd just appear to be needlessly antagonistic posting here. I'm not saying that at times, MF can't be rude, but part of the joys of meeting folks from around the world is being exposed to other cultures, and yes, sometimes that means they have differing societal norms. (This doesn't mean I don't wish that MF wouldn't quit tarring ALL Americans with a broad brush, surely I haven't ever been sanctimonious to him, right?) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I try not to tar all Americans with the same brush; there are a helluva lot of you and precious little similarity between someone from New York and the wilderness of Montana for instance. But there's definitely an overarching "have a nice day" attitude on wikipedia that I find to be very cloying and rather sickly. I'm reminded of a famous retort from Winston Churchill after Lady Astor accused him of being drunk one evening: "And you Madame are ugly; very, very ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning." Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly meant to convey what I thought about that tone - so that might seem "preachy" on the receiving end, but that's not the same as sanctimony (which conveys a dominant element of hypocrisy or superficiality that I believe doesn't apply to my post). More importantly, there's an effort to attract editors to wikipedia, and hostile language can really turn people away. I don't think we should be treacly, but open hostility doesn't serve WP well. Thought it was worth saying. -- Scray (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you thought wrong. Nothing to which you drew attention involved new editors. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you make sure only experienced editors read what you write? -- Scray (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would inexperienced editors be reading what I wrote at your friend's RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thus you demonstrate how little one can glean. I've never interacted, in any way as far as I know, with that editor. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Still here? Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems to have been a comment directed at me that started all this, I'd like to point out that I didn't find it in any way offensive, since what I said originally was indeed stupid, and ambiguous enough that dishonesty on my part was a valid (though incorrect) interpretation. I'd be more concerned that clowns were offended by the comparison; some clowns are far from stupid. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you consult a dictionary, and think a little harder before you waste your time in posting here again. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder who would be more offended by Ealdgyth's above comment: Yankees or Limeys. Based on past online interactions, I don't believe that the former group are as bitter as their name suggests. I don't think it's a question of rudeness so much as it is of how we display our dissatisfaction. Cocky Cockneys tend to display their arrogance with some bizarre type of nationalistic pride, while cocky Americans (of which there is no shortage) are a little more subtle about it. Not that I approve of either of those groups, though.-RHM22 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its a generalization, but I didn't say Brits were rude, I said they were blunt. I quite honestly find being in Japan to be like being in an oppressive nunnery, but I have friends who think all the smiling and bowing and stuff is charming. I actually like England, and all the residents of the UK I've met in my life (spent several summers working with lots of Scots, Limeys, Irish, and even a few Welsh, so it's not just "visited the country once, but lived, worked, and partied alongside) have been a great deal of fun, but I would no more dream of trying to impose my standards of personal interactions on them than I would a pig to fly. Of course, it's worth noting that MF's never had to be blunt with me like he was above, because I've never come over and told him how to behave either. I think sometimes he can be a bit more abrasive than is probably needed, but I also think the cult of "civility" has entirely too much traction on Wikipedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to found a commune, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a Wikipedia thing TBH. There are rude people sprinkled liberally across both the UK and the US (at least in my experience). Us Brits tend to be more... to the point. Canadians are the same. Japan... well that's a whole other kettle of fish. The important thing to get is all that smiling and politeness isn't necessarily polite. It's a social game; you can smile and bow at your worst enemy and still convey all that bad sentiment. It is an art form :) (Japan is my favourite country to work in, once you know the rules of the game it is, well, gameable). --Errant ^(chat!) 23:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I get rather tired of having my personality criticised here on wikipedia, which strangely is never considered to be incivil. But when I criticise anyone's intellectual capability, based on their obvious stupidity, then that's considered to be a blocking offence. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that anyone who finds me too blunt can quite simply ignore me and I'll be equally happy to ignore them. And if it proves to be the case that wikipedia is a social experiment rather than an attempt to produce an open-source encyclopedia then it would be better off without me anyway, as I'm not amenable to any kind of social coercion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you can judge intelligence so readily; commenting on specific edits is less offensive and exceedingly unlikely to draw a block. -- Scray (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I can judge behaviour very readily, just as I judge yours to be trolling. Now please go away and troll someone else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) May I *strongly* suggest that this isn't going to lead to anything productive. You've had your say, MF's had his say, you obviously disagree, and further discussion isn't very productive. (That's a polite way of saying what MF is probably thinking - "go away".) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not called MF for nothing.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How much does he pay them for that? Seriously, as a psychologist, I'm reminded of the line from Fawlty Towers: "There's enough material there for a whole conference". Hengist Pod (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a psychologist? When did you graduate? I graduated in 1975, and subsequently realised that I couldn't really give a flying fuck about psychology. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about Japan, other than what I've seen on television, which is probably not all that reliable. Actually, I was joking about the offensive thing. I personally don't get offended by anything said (or rather written, I suppose) on the internet. Still, I find it prudent to avoid abrasive language when conversing with good faith editors. Obviously that's just my personal Wikipedia style, but I think it's the best one. Nice work on tonight's main page appearance by the way. I didn't check, but I'm certain that not many others were working on that bishop article.-RHM22 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I've pretty much got the "medieval English bishop" market cornered. Occasionally Deacon chimes in with a "medieval Scottish bishop" and Mike used to work on "medieval Anglo-Saxon kings" but he's moved over to "fantasy/science fiction pulp magazines". I despise main page day, it's just not fun. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had an MPA yet, so I haven't had much expirience except for occasionally reverting vandalism. It might be a bit of a pain, but I wouldn't mind to get one of my dollar coin articles on the main page. I think that would introduce a lot of people to something they may not be familiar with. Most of the articles I've done are relatively obscure, and I like to think that they're a little more interesting than mushrooms. I suppose it really depends on the type of mushroom though.-RHM22 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll find out... – iridescent 02:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiramisu- what does that mean in Italian or dialect? And don't say "pick me up", as I refuse to believe someone's maiden name would be Francesca "pick me up". Ning-ning (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Translating websites give something similar to that, for what it's worth (nothing).-RHM22 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Pickup is an English-language surname (and far less silly-sounding than other genuine names like Sidebottom), I can easily believe "Pickmeup" is a genuine Italian name. Every source from the OED down to Wiktionary concurs that the etymology of tiramisu-the-foodstuff derives from "pick up". – iridescent 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It may also have some sort of religious signifigance in Italian that it doesn't have in English.-RHM22 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It just means tira=pick/pull, mi=me, su=up. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the name is intended to mean "something sweet to make you smile" (i.e. a pick me up). At least that is what my tame Italian thinks. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that "pick me up" has at least four different meanings in English, so even this translation is equivocal? --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the meanings? I can only think of three. One is a caffeinated drink or something, one means to literally pick someone up, and one means to give someone a ride. The reason I thought that it might have some kind of religious signifigance it's because it's not really common that a direct translation means the exact same thing in two different languages. For instance, in English we sometimes say something is "hot" when it's spicey, but "caliente" usually only means hot (high temperature) in Spanish. I don't know anything about Italian, so there's a very good chance that I'm not right about that.-RHM22 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the fourth is as in "pickup line". Ucucha 17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's probably it.-RHM22 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant for the fourth. The first one you mentioned is also sometimes a euphemism for harder drugs, so you might consider that a fifth depending on how broadly you meant the "or something". --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would count that as only one meaning, since it probably derives from the word for caffeinated/alcoholic drink.-RHM22 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a somewhat depressing sign of where modern society is headed that Googling "pick me up" gives none of those meanings on the first page, but rather five different commercial uses of the term - and two more on the second before the first proper use. Tiramisu seems to have survived largely unscathed. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I will know what a main page appearance is like. Flowing Hair dollar will appear on the main page on May 4!-RHM22 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad luck. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about it. I'm expecting maybe 8 or 9 vandals, 3 or 4 useless but well-intended good faith edits and a few useful grammar fixes.-RHM22 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. What do you think of the length of the article? I know it's not the shortest, but I think it may be one of the shortest FAs. Maybe it's in the top (or maybe bottom?) ten or so.-RHM22 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's number 3,071. I guess I was a little off on my earlier figure!-RHM22 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the 180th shortest featured article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The length seems fine to me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with the length, I was just wondering how it compared to other short articles.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's especially short, but the issue is whether it covers everything that needs to be covered, which it seems to do. A nice little article really, well done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I like it because there's not a lot of information available on that coin series online right now, which is always a plus for me when writing articles.-RHM22 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, you have 34 edits to the RfA and I have one. Juliancolton (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong record. I was referring to the fact that you came charging in late to try and save the day. Malleus Fatuorum 12:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no way this RFA was going to be turned around, and in fact the longer it was left open the worse things got.

Date	Votes	Per cent
Apr 19	38-4	90.4
Apr 20	45-5	90
Apr 21	60-8	88
Apr 22	69-17	80
Apr 23	76-22	77
Apr 24	80-37	68
Apr 25	82-43	65
Close	84-48	63

Courcelles !voted and posted his rationale on the 22nd, which was a bit of a turning point. On the 23rd, I realised I did not think Dylan should be an admin. As the percentage was continuously dropping, I decided to !vote, with the expectation that it was no longer a done deal and my participation could be meaningful. That was Dylan's worst day, as the percentage dropped by 10. At the time the RFA should have closed the percent was 65, and when it actually closed it had dropped to 63. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

From the graphs I've seen, it is usual for RfA support percentage to gently decline over the one week period. Looks par for the course to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus: I'm surprised you take me for one who thinks he could singlehandedly "save" an RfA with 50 opposes from failure. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The next time the argument that some children are more mature than adults, or some children are far more mature per the list of child prodigies is brought up at an RfA, please let me know. That's the dumbest argument I've ever seen, and I have experience with highly advanced and precious children. --Moni3 (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't you agree that the person should be judged on their actions? Obviously most children (though Dylan is not a child, and "adolescent" would probably be more accurate) are not as mature as most adults, but they all need to be judged individually, both adults and children. Your blanket opposition to anyone younger than 18 is absurd. If all !voters started opposing based on age, all mature teenagers would just choose not to disclose their age.-RHM22 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My blanket opposition to what? What did I oppose? --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your oppositing to teenage admins. I don't mean your oppose !votes (I don't know if there are any), I just meant you overall opposition to people aged less than 18 becomings admins.-RHM22 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did I oppose teenage admins? Did I oppose anything other than these bad arguments? --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this again, but it seemed as though you didn't believe that some children (or teenagers in this case) are mature enough to be admins.-RHM22 (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that some children or adolescents should be admins, particularly the ones who exhibit behavior that is overwhelmingly shown by children and adolescents, including a desperate desire to be taken seriously and overcompensating for the feeling that one is not; inability to see complex issues; being too wrapped up in one's identity (as an admin or prospective admin--change this to whatever cliques are raging at school this year: "I don't do Activity X; only Group Y does that.") to perform duties or behave beyond this identity; depending too heavily on off-Wiki communications for assistance in making decisions; aligning oneself too closely with other editors and not being able or willing to disagree with them when it's deserved; considering one's own online social standing fairly high in one's decision-making processes; and just speaking with undeserved authority to new editors while exhibiting a depressing lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policies.

However, my comment was about the arguments being used to justify why some adolescents would make good admins, one of them being holding up a list of child prodigies as evidence that some children or teenagers have the judgment to carry out admin tasks. That's just a terrible argument showing ignorance for what child prodigies are with the assumption that if a child is good at one thing, like playing the piano, he's good enough then to be president of Harvard because he's also that mature. And the argument that "some children are more mature than adults" is more an argument to get rid of the RfA process because that just means these problematic behaviors are more related to humanity than age. I actually think this is pretty much the way to go. RfA is a voting system that serves to approve of editors' tenure on Wikipedia. Why wouldn't that attract people desperate for recognition, to feel as if you belong, are a legitimate member of a community, and have some kind of authority? That's pretty much its purpose, although it appears as if its purpose is to vet candidates to do boring mindless tasks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I agree. The prodigy thing is a ridiculous argument, though I do understand what the people using it were trying to say. My point is just that to judge an editor, you need to understand more than just one thing about them. Obviously someone who exhibits the behaviors you list above shouldn't be an admin, adult or otherwise.-RHM22 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't understand anything about someone you don't know, all you can is to judge their behaviour here on wikipedia and make whatever assessments you think are reasonable from whatever information they reveal about themselves. Such as that they're still at school for instance. The bottom line though of course is that RfA is only about two things: popularity and civility. Nothing else matters. How many articles have I helped on their way to FAC today, for instance? But that's worthless in terms of RfA brownie points, because I fell foul of a couple of users early in my time here and it's been downhill since then. You on the other hand did relatively little and were careful not to upset any potentially powerful enemies. Children are perhaps better at that than adults. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your biggest problem is not just incivility, but rank incivility. I don't aim to tell you how to act, but you can't possibly expect to be given admin powers when you openly insult other editors, whether they deserved it or not. I'm not sure what you're implying (other than that I'm a child), but I assure you that I was not acting civilly just to gain adminship. I decided to so I could do extra things that I couldn't before, but it certainly was not my original plan. I'm not sure what you have against civility by the way. I can understand if you don't want to be civil, but why are you against others' politeness?-RHM22 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try to lecture me. You and your kind frankly make me sick with your hypocritically sanctimonious claptrap. You are a child without any significant input to the alleged purpose of this project who learned to do the minimum required to climb the greasy pole to adminship. You are also quite clearly unable to understand any argument presented to you, and so I would request that you toddle off now and try annoying someone else. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to lecture you. I even said that I don't want or try to tell you how to act. I was asking why you dislike civility. You do, don't you? Actually, you're the one that brought up civility. I was discussing with Moni the underage admin question, and you somehow equated that with civility. Besides, you seem to have a fascination with greasy poles, accusing others of trying to climb them. Why then do you have so many featured and good articles? The only purpose of attempting to get an article to featured status is to gain recognition for your work. If you were only interested in improving the quality of articles, you would do just that and not nominate anything for FA, GA or DYK. I suppose it begs the question: who's worse? The children who run this site or the adults that try to impress them?-RHM22 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be getting the message, and your repeated posting here is now bordering on harrassment. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to do a comparison of how many declared versus undeclared teenagers pass RfA, but obviously that would be impossible for candidates who don't declare their age. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in that, you might try contacting editors who have been admins for a few years. If they were undeclared teenagers at the time of their RfA, they might be more likely to tell you about it now. Just a thought.-RHM22 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Malleus. I'm reluctant to ask your advice as I know you do not like to go within ten miles of Irish-related articles. I have, however, just helped promote this article to GA class: Miami Showband killings, and I believe it merits FAC. I rewrote it back in December and it is surprisingly free of ongoing edit wars and disputes. It is a graphically-written and factually-correct article about a brutal, tragic event that took place in Northern Ireland in 1975. I wrote it from a NPOV and backed every fact with a RS. I have seen your excellent work on FAs, and I hope that if you can spare the time, you could give me some advice on taking this article to FA. Thanks Malleus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure I'll take a look. From an initial read through it looks pretty good, and surprisingly stable for an Irish article. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I used reliable sources, and have striven to constantly maintain a neutral point of view throughout the article. When I started rewriting it, the article was short and politically-charged with the central theme being that Nairac was likely behind it. I changed the entire article making the attack on the band the main focus, and then told as a historical event. Another editor tirelessly formatted the refs and gave me sage advice. I really appreciate your taking the time to look it over.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Once Malleus is done with it, I will be happy to look it over as well. I've done several crime-related FAs. Just drop me a line on my talk when you want me to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This will fall under the Northern Ireland provisions. In a nutshell, if anyone complains about the actions taken by anyone else, any uninvolved admin can issue a probation-warning. Once warned an editor is restricted to one revert per article per week, and the strictest interpretation of WP:CIV is made regarding any discussion of or relating to the article. I assume you're all aware already, but just in case it's slipped your minds; falling afoul of the intentionally draconian NI sanctions has been the end-point of many Wikipedia careers. – iridescent 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apposite reminder. I only just twigged in fact that this article was under 1RR, but I see that an editor was placed on a 3-month Troubles probation just last month. A one-week block for a first offence is indeed Draconian, so I'll keep my distance from this one. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll do a copyedit, but if I'm warned (I have no real views on the Troubles except I always wished they'd stop) I will have to stop editing. Let me know when you're ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's deliberately draconian, and for good reason. The NI arguments were among the nastiest in Wikipedia's history, and a lot of current feuds can be traced directly back to it. As long as you don't argue with people, there's no reason there should be any problem with editing the article—if anyone challenges you, step aside and let Jeanne or Wehwalt do the discussion on your behalf. Since this is unlikely to be a contentious article—the most hardline republican and the most extreme loyalist would probably agree that in retrospect, this was not a legitimate act of war—the issues which led to the special NI provisions are unlikely to be raised. – iridescent 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Having done any number of controversial articles, I'm willing to give it a shot, but I'm not willing to risk sanctions. I am unquestionably neutral on the subject and have never edited an article relating to 20th century Ireland that I remember but I know well that being neutral just doubles the number of people shooting at you. But dam it, someone's got to help out on this. Someone's come and asked for help advancing an article to FA. Isn't that our job? The stars are nice, but the point is to have more top-level articles for the project, regardless of who wrote them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be treading very carefully Iridescent, and I've got no intention of getting into a dispute with anyone over any aspect of this article. Wehwalt, I'm about halfway through reading it now and I've started to leave some notes on the article's talk page, so have at it whenever you're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to let you go all the way through it, that way I can see all your notes and evaluate the article as a whole.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm done now. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it'd be a great thing to get an article in an arbcom-sanctioned area to FA status. We need some as templates to what can be achieved in a difficult area. Maybe there are lessons to be learnt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There's Muhammad al-Durrah incident, and perhaps others in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, although I've purposefully stopped paying any attention to that corner of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question was a more recent one - I spent some time trying to keep that review on-track, and quite frankly it was exhausting at times. I can't imagine actually being the one working up and nominating such an article while facing active opposition and the possibility of sanctions. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There has never been an edit war on this particular article. I have constantly striven to be neutral; and regarding the issues of UDR involvement and Robert Nairac complicity (subjects likely to cause controversy), I have presented both from a balanced, matter-of-fact perspective. As Iridescent says, even the most hardline republican or loyalist would recognise that the band was not a legitimate target, and the attack was heinous. It's indicative of the contemporary loyalist mindset that the UVF leader ("The Craftsman") whom Travers met in 2006, apologised on behalf of the UVF. I have written this article from an historical, not political perspective.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is good to hear. It is unlikely I will get to this for a few days, but I will give it a read through and cautiously copyedit.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be gentle. LOL. I do realise the criteria is very high for an FA. This is only my second GA, so I'm inexperienced in this area. I would greatly appreciate your input, help and advice. Thanks, Wehwalt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I really haven't looked at it yet, but Malleus seems to think well of it and he wouldn't "just say that".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you asked the newer editors who hang out on my talk page, they would tell you I am helpful and encouraging when it comes to new editors. A couple have made admin (though that's a dirty word on this talk page) and one of those has written multiple FAs now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus! The equine editors (mainly Ealdgyth, Montanabw and I) have been working on Appaloosa for the past several years, and it is to the point that we are finally planning to nominate it for FAC, probably sometime next week. If you have the time and interest, would you mind taking a look with your wonderful eye for prose? Any help is much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. (I think Ealdgyth already mentioned that one to me.). Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The three of you are horses? Well, that explains what happened in the sixth at Santa Anita.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(whaps Wehwalt) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done.[5] Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Wonderful, as always. Dana boomer (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a very thoroughly researched article to me, a credit to you all. I made what might seem to be a lot of changes, but it was just moving a few commas around really. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you (and those friends who watch this page) like to cast you eye over Chiswick House and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Chiswick House and comment. Wikipedia is lucky (see my page) to have a proper, but "newbie", expert (already accused of vandalism [6] for following my advice) which is rather sad as the man has run the place for the last decade or so, and he wants it to be a top class article; it would be rather nice if some of us more "dedicated to content" editors rallied around and saw this whacked on through and up into FA status and onto the front page ASAP - it could be more entertaining than arguing with the civility police and their illk (is that how you spell "illk"?)and leave them looking rather bored and idle - which of course is what they are. Giacomo Returned 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I used to live about a mile from Chiswick House, but shamefully I never visited it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a few observations, but obviously that article needs a lot of work yet if it's ever to see the light of day at FAC. Mostly pruning and citing I think, but a lot of it. ("Illk" is spelt "ilk".) Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus, that had realy shown the writer what is required etc - interesting page with a lot of potential, but like you say - a lot that needs doing. Giacomo Returned 18:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

just narrowly avoided a conflict there :-) it's all yours, I am off to bed. Giacomo Returned 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done there too for tonight Giano, but there is much left undone. Enough content building for me, I'm off to look for a fight now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am now recognizing adolescents who spend their time trying to be administrators.

For example, an article on a member of the Swedish Academy of Sciences was started by a new editor and existed for one day. The new editor receive a template about the PROD, with no personal note; the new editor's talk-page has templates from at least another underage beserker, who has been blocked, for goodness's sake. The fellow leaving the PROD template has received many cautions already.

Malleus has noted that it's going to be painful to add an age restriction on administrators. What can be done?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is misleading. Gustav Elfving's notability has never been in question. The article has never had a PROD, nor been tagged for speedy deletion, nor been nominated for deletion at AfD. Twinkle automatically provides a notification template to the creator of a page when the page is tagged for speedy deletion; age restrictions for administrators, whether maximum or minimum, won't change that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, Demiurge1000. The prod-template linked to the article, I repeat. What you write provides additional context, but no correction of any misleading statement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on Sandy's page.

In retrospect I should probably have left more of the commas in the article, as it was written mostly by US editors and is an American topic; something I will have to bear in mind in future FAC and GAC copyedits.

With regard to copyediting, and GOCE as a whole, I try to edit the least amount possible really. The commas issue is only as I am finding a few FAC and GAC editors that are having a go for my removal of them. Most articles I copyedit are not in much need of touching up to any great extent, apart from the odd Indian or South American articles - some of these need almost complete rewrites.

I have tried to write more engagingly in articles I edit as I feel I can go to town a little more, rather than GOCE requests for copyedits where I see my job only really as correcting punctuation, formatting and grammar/spelling. I really want to spend some time on my best work to date, Belitung shipwreck, as I created it I feel I have more licence to change the style and tone - perhaps I am too worried about treading on other editors toes when it comes to articles I have not worked on much.

Glad to see the incivility police haven't made you go mad yet :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

They have, I'm just biting my tongue. Very hard. The only advice I can offer you is to try and be sensitive to the voice of the original editor, and let that show through no matter what fixes you have to make. Sometimes there's no right or wrong anyway, so don't impose your view on, say, the correct placement of commas or citation styles. Some American editors like Ealdgyth are very reasonable; she's let me have my evil way with several of her articles, but others are more defensive. Horses for courses really. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Slow down, surely "civility police" is the accepted term?!? If so, then the incivility police must police something different... I still can't be bothered to find out whether flammable and inflammable really mean the same thing or not, though, so perhaps civility police and incivility police are a subtle distinction rather than an antithesis. We also seem to have the maturity police and immaturity police now. Maybe we need a page with a set of scales for different criteria across different spectrums of maturity and civility, like at WP:CANVASS? And a WikiProject for the required police forces? And userboxes for police force members who participate in the New Editor Patrol (WP:NEP?) "This new editor has been rated as 8 on the maturity scale, 6 on the immaturity scale, 3 on the civility scale, 5 on the incivility scale, and Top Importance on the Manoeuvre to Adminship Scale." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This may be an appropriate moment to say how childish I find the various "patrol" appellations to be. On the other hand it may bring the wrath of the children down on me again. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree with this. Calling the process "new page patrol" seems logical. (Would "new page checking" really be so different?) People undertaking that patrol, even briefly, are therefore "new page patrollers", although that does start sounding a bit more pompous. The userboxes with cartoon images of policemen, for use by the patrollers, seem to be going a step too far.

Your personal viewpoint on Wikipedia in general, strongly affects your view of New Page Patrol, perhaps. You consider that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are worthless or nearly worthless, and that it's pointless trying to change that, therefore you concentrate on improving a smaller number of higher quality articles. New page patrollers, perhaps like King Canute, have a different view of Wikipedia and therefore are trying to help Wikipedia from an equally valid viewpoint. These opposite viewpoints will cause friction, sure, but it would be nice not to let disagreement turn into contempt. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you were to check your facts Demiurge you would find that I have "patrolled" many hundreds of new articles, and even saved some from deletion. People seem to make assumptions about me that are unsupported by the facts. "Is it because I is black?" Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec x2) Flammable and inflammable are the same thing...inflame basically. Civility and Incivility - I use it as they don't give grief to people who are perceived as civil, only to those they perceive to be showing incivility - often they cannot even get that right though, it would be (for me at least) showing extreme incivility to come to my talk page and tell me I cannot swear there lol, as it would be for not being able to call someone stupid when they were being. Too much emphasis is placed on the words rather than the actions that caused them.

There is nothing wrong with "New page wiki project" - and I really do not appreciate having to create a completed C-class article in my sandbox. I recently created a list, bigger than a stub, when someone came along and decided to delete it, with the comment "Abandoned article", and place it in my sandbox "I thought I would put it in your sandbox rather than delete it". Whatever happened to creating a stub and then expanding it??

I suppose youngsters need a gang to be in...it's the modern way. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You will find a number of discusssions about flammable vs inflammable on the web but this one is particularly succinct. The correct usage is/was 'inflammable' but as it was confusing for some people (including Homer Simpson I seem to remember) the use of 'flammable' was recommended - at least in the US. Richerman (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is always a good place to seek advice on flammability, ethnicity, gang mentality and many other things. Don't worry Malleus, I've patrolled a few new pages too, although I don't specifically remember saving any. I don't really think that people discriminate against you because of the colour of your skin. Then again, who knows! Chaosdruid, the gang mentality thing has been happening for a few thousand years at least, so modernity is old hat. On the other hand, the idea of a stoked-up patroller steaming through your recent additions, but politely moving "non-approved" content to your sandbox, does make me chuckle a bit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read; I'm not black. Or am I? Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he's about as black as Ali G - but some would say he's a black-hearted devil. Richerman (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If virtue no delighted beauty lack, / Your son in law is much more fair than black. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support here, especially knowing your dislike of infoboxes; at least you seem to tolerate the people who produce them! It seems to me that GR is a highly intelligent academic (HIA) sort of person. Now WP has a purpose to serve such people, but I guess that for each HIA who visits WP there are hundreds (probably thousands) of "ordinary" folk who are doing a bit of browsing or having a quick look at a subject that may interest them. We should be serving them too. As I see it, an infobox is a waste of time for the HIA, but at least it is harmless. And it may serve as an eye-catcher for the curious browser, tempting her/him to look further into the article. If it does not, nothing is lost. OK it fills a bit of space, but most people know how to scroll. The infobox I added to Little Moreton Hall showed at a glance that it is a highly attractive building (and the image on both my narrow-screen monitor and on my wide-screen laptop show it much larger than any postage stamp I ever use), roughly where it is on a simple map, and that is is regarded as being important, being a Grade I listed building and a scheduled ancient monument. Not much use to a HIA, but it might intrigue a casual visitor. Anyway I now have the assurance that GR will not be editing articles on Cheshire architecture any more (not sure if that is a good or a bad thing). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much indifferent to infoboxes. I've used them myself such as in my series on Manchester theatres like the Hulme Hippodrome, to present a common look and feel with other similar articles. Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So what do you think of the article now, with its obtrusive "invisible template"? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's gone. Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of that house (Little Moreton Hall), I wrote a stub for Complete English Gardener, and am pretty sure that the book was first published in 1670. So maybe "a design taken from Meager's Complete English Gardener, published in 1672" needs to be tweaked, depending on what your source (Joekes) says; possibly it's a 1672 publication of the book. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Joekes' book. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)